ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 29-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH 
v. 
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
JANUARY 29, 2003 
B 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.8. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
)" 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
Writ petition filed by workmen for regularisation of service-Supreme 
Court held that services of certain categories of workmen in the Organisation 
r 
be regularised subject to fulfilment of certain eligibility conditions-Dispute 
in respect of identification of such workmen may be referred to Chief Labour 
D 
Commissioner (CLC)-On I.As. filed, it was clarified that for redress al of any 
dispute workmen may approach the authority in accordance with /aw-Some 
of the workmen absorbed by the Organisation and cases of identification of 
remaining workmen referred to CLC who ordered absorption of some more 
of these workmen-Dismissal of Review application by CLC, High Court also 
dismissed the Writ Petition and Writ application filed by workmen-Union-
E On appeal, Held, Jn spite of clear and unambiguous directions by the Supreme 
Court, workmen did not go to appropriate authority for resolving the dispute 
but preferred the writ petition before the High Court-Hence, High Court 
rightly dismissed the writ petition-Constitution of India; Articles 32 and 226. 
Some workmen filed a writ petition for regularisation of their 
~ 
F services on the ground that they had been doing similar jobs as has been 
~
done by regular employees of the Plant. Supreme Court allowed the writ 
petition and issued certain directions for absorption of workmen subject 
to fulfilment of eligibility conditions and also directed that in case of any 
dispute as to identification of such workmen the same may be referred 
G 
to the Chief Labour Commissioner. Workmen filed interlocutory 
applications for further orde~ and clarification. Disposing of I.As., the 
Court directed workmen to approach any other appropriate authority 
~ 
prescribed under law. 
In the meanwhile, cases of ineligible workmen were referred to 
H 
704 
ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH' STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA,!.] 705 
the Chief Labour Commissioner who found some more workmen eligible A 
for absorption. In review, the Chief Labour Commissioner ordered 
absorption of some l)lore workmen. Workmen Union also filed a writ 
petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, writ appeal 
was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Chief Labour B 
Commissioner did not follow proper criterion to identify eligible workmen; 
that some workmen had been retrenched pending proceedings before 
this Court and that since the High Court is also an authority, writ petition 
could be filed before the High Court. 
It was submitted for the respondents that the Chief Labour 
Commissioner arrived at his finding after taking into consideration all 
the documents placed by the workmen Union; and that since I.As. were 
pending before Supreme Court, workmen Union could not file writ petition 
· on the same issue before High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
D 
HELD: I. The appellants after pronouncement of the judgment of 
this Court apprehended that a large number of workmen might be 
retrenched. They sought for clarification by filing the I.As. which were 
disposed of directing that in the event they are aggrieved by the order of E 
the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), they may take recourse to 
such proceedings as are available to them in law. The appellants were 
fully aware of the fact that they were required to approach the Industrial 
Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for 
ventilating their grievances. (712-E-F-H; 713-A( 
F 
2. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), while determining 
the question as to counting continuo~s service of the workmen so as to 
enable them to derive benefit of earlier judgment of the Supreme Court, 
was not acting as a statutory authority, he was merely acting pursuant to 
or in furtherance of the directions of the Court. (712-DI 
G 
R.K Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors .. 119941 5 SCC 
3041, referred to. 
3. The term 'authority' used in this Court's earlier order must be 
read in the context in which it was used. The appellant in terms thereof H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R. 
A could seek a reference which would mean a reference in terms of Section 
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It could also approach 'the authority in 
accor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.