LexRASHTRIYA CHEM. & FERTILIZERS LTD. AND ANR. versus GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
). RASHTRIYA CHEM. & FERTILIZERS LID. AND ANR. A v. GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. APRIL 23, 2007 [DR. ARinT PASA YAT AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950--Article 226-Central Government circular , not prohibiting contractual labour in the establishment-Writ petition challenging the circular-Petitioner conceding that the issue could not be c decided in writ petition-High Court directing Central Government to make reference of the dispute to Industrial Court for adjudication-Held; Not appropriate-High Court was to consider the petitioner's stand when petitioner accepted that certain issues could not be decided in writ petition--- It should have left it to them to avail remedy under 1947 Act-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. D r Central Government issued circular refusing to abolish and prohibit contract labour in the Civil Works and Carpentry establishment of the appellant. First Respondent-General Employees Association challenged the Circular. Writ petitioner conceded that the said issue cannot be considered by High Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution E and the appropriate forum was to go into such question. High Court issued direction to the Central Government to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication whether the contract labour system was genuine, or was a mere camouflage to deprive the contract employees of the benefits .. ·~ available to permanent employees of appellant No. 1 and granted interim F protection to the workers. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Once the respondent No. 1 approached the High Court on the foundation that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 G applied, it pre supposes existence of a valid contract. What the writ petitioner- '-:· respondent No.1 wanted was quashment of Notification for reconsideration. In view of what has been stated in second SAIL case the High Court has to consider whether the stand taken in the writ petition was inconsistent. In the - instant case the writ petitioner itself accepted that certain issues could not 457 H 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. A be decided in the writ petition. That being so, High Court giving directions in " the nature done, do not appear to be appropriate. The High Court ought not to have given the directions in the manner done and should have left the respondent No.I-Association to avail remedy available in the I.D. Act [Para 11) (465-F, G; 466-A) B 1.2. It is open to respondent No.I to move the appropriate State Government seeking reference of the purported dispute to the Tribunal The State Government would consider whether any reference is called for. (Para 12] (466-B, CJ ~ c Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National and Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., [2001] 7SCC l; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India of Ors., (Second SAIL Case) (2006) 3 CLR 659; Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam. Tamil Nadu v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1983) 1 SCC 304; V. Veerarajc;n and Ors. v. Government a/Tamil and Ors., (1987] 1 SCC 479 and TELCO Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of D Bihar and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 271, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2122 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7543 of2000. E WITH C.A. No. 2123 of2007. Jamshed P. Cama, M.S. Bodanwala, Gopal Jain, R.N. Karanjawala, Nandini F Gore, Jayant Mohan and Manik Karanjawala for the Appellants. 1 • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Lt:ave granted. G 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing reference to the Industrial Tribunal and granting interim protection to the workers in the Civil Appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 594 of2004. 3. First Respondent-General Employees Association (in short the - H 'Association') had questioned legality of the Circular dated 8.11.2000 issued RASllTRIYACHEM. & FERTILIZERS LTD. v. GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PASAYAT, I.] 459 ~-;:. by the Central Government conveying its decision refusing to abolish and A prohibit contract labour in the Civil Works and Carpentry establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No.I, in W.P. No.7543/ 2000. It was alleged by the writ pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.