Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala vs The State of Punjab and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The main point involved in these writ petitions being inter-connected, they were heard together. The employer - Punjab State Electricity Board has filed CWP No. 955 of 2000 praying that the notification dated 27.11.1998 (copy at Annexure P-5) vide which the Punjab Government prohibited employment of contract labour in six processes in Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant Chanauli, District Ropar be quashed. The plants qua which the contract labour is prohibited are as under :-

Coal Handling Plant (Operation and Maintenance) Unloading of coal/oil and cleaning of coal handling plant system.

Maintenance of Turbo Generation.

Maintenance of Boiler/Mills side and Ash Handling.

Maintenance of Electrical Equipments.

Maintenance and Control of Instruments.

Maintenance of Auxiliary of Thermal Plant.

Ropar Thermal Power Contractors Workers Union and the General Secretary of the union have filed CWP No. 4010 of 1999 praying that Punjab State Electricity Board be directed to absorb the employed workers in the above mentioned coal handling plants from the date of their initial engagement. They have also prayed for arrears of pay on account of difference in regular pay scale and the pay already granted to them.

Arguing the case of the Punjab State Electricity Board in CWP 955 of 2000 learned counsel for the PSEB Mr. Sanjeev Sharma argued that the notification issued by the Government is faulty because the proper procedure as required under the law for issuing the notification is not followed. He has further argued that the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") does not ipso-facto terminate contract labour system but empowers the appropriate Government to do so and the appropriate government has to follow a proper procedure and after considering the matter, has to take a decision whether the contract labour has to be prohibited or not. He has also argued that the work carried out in the above mentioned plants cannot be said to be perennial in nature. u/s 3 of the Act there is a provision for constituting a Central Advisory Board. Similarly u/s 4 of the Act there is a provision for constituting a Stale Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the "State Board"). The Board has to advise the State Government on such matters arising out of the administration of this Act. The appropriate Government (Central Government or the State Government) after considering the Central Board or the State Board, as the case may be, by a notification can prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. However, the appropriate government has to consider the conditions of work and the benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as :-

(a) Whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment ;

(b) Whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishments;

(c) Whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto;

(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen."

The explanation to the said section provides that if a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.

u/s 5 of the Act the Central Board or the State Board as the case may be, may constitute such committee for such purpose as it may think fit. In the present case the Governor of Punjab had constituted a sub committee for the purpose by notification dated 4.2.1998. The committee was required to study the practice and quantum of contract labour in the above mentioned plants and enquire whether contract labour system can be prohibited in the said plants. The committee was also to identify processes being carried out through contract labour and also find out how much labour is employed which was needed to be abolished. It has also to examine the consequence of prohibition of contract labour system in each process/occupation and also to report that the abolition will not cause an adverse effect on these industries. It was also to give hearing to employees and employees association and submit its report within three months.

The sub committee held a meeting on 24.4.1998 in which members of the committee including the representatives of the PSEB and the workers were present. In the meeting the representatives of the PSEB did not agree to the abolition of the contract labour and there was no unanimity among the members and it was decided that all the issues should be debated threadbare before the State Advisory Contract Labour Board. The Board held a meeting on 25.8.1998. The minutes of the same are at Annexure P-4. One of the items on the agenda was regarding the abolition of the contract labour in the above mentioned plants. The minutes recorded are as under:-

"Item No. 2: relating to the abolition of the Conlract Labour System from 6 processes of Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Chanauli, Distt. Ropar was read in detail by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab. The recommendations of the Sub-Committee being unanimous were also accepted by the Board. The Board, thus decided to abolish the Contract Labour System in the following processes of this establishment."

The processes in the establishment are enumerated in the minutes which are the processes mentioned above.

Mr. Sharma vehemently argued that when the Sub-Committee was not unanimous the Board had erred in observing that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was unanimous and the notification having been based on this erroneous observation, the notification deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel who appeared for the workmen argued that the word "unanimous" appears to be by mistake and it should be by "majority" instead of "unanimous". He has referred to a judgment in the case of Election Commission of India and another Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and another, . He has relied on the lines from Halsbury" s law of England, 4th Edition which have been reproduced in that case. They are as under :

"The principle has long been established that the will of a Corporation or body can only be expressed by the whole or a majority of its members, and the act of a majority is regarded as the act of the whole."

Mr. Sharma argued that this cannot be the position when the Board has specifically used the word unanimous. The private respondents-workmen have produced some documents. One of them is at Annexure R2/4. It is the report of the Sub-Committee. Regarding to the dale of this report, we are told by the learned Stale counsel that it was along with the covering letter dated 24.7.98 in the file of the Government and it is signed by the Additional Commissioner. Labour. That means before Annexure P-4 there was also a decision of the Committee. Annexure R2-4 finds mention in para II of the written statement of the added respondents i.e. RTP Contract Workers Union. It is mentioned in that paragraph that the State Board is a standing Board and was constituted under the provisions of the Act, and it was not specifically constituted for the abolition of contract labour in the Punjab State Electricity Board. It is further stated that the representatives of the Workers Union were called as special invitees on their representation and not as members of the Board. It is further stated that the report of the Sub-Committee was presented before the State Advisory Contract Labour Board and the copy of the said report is annexed as annexure R-2/4 with the written statement . This document is not controverted in the replication. Therefore annexure P4 are the proceedings of the Sub-Committee and Annexure R-2/4 is the report of the Sub Committee (in the last paragraph of the report there is a mention of "three" processes. However, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that it is written by mistake and it should be "six"). It is contended in the written statement that Annexure R-2/4 does not mention the word unanimous. There is no reference to this statement in the replication of the petitioner dated 30.7.2000. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that the word unamious has been written by mistake and even if the word unamious is removed it is the recommendation by majority. It is also argued that it is not necessary that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee has to be unanimous. It is not shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recommendation of the Sub Committee has to be unamious and that otherwise the contact labour cannot be abolished. In the written statement of the added respondents it is contended in paras 9 and 10 that the representative of the Board wanted to place some more information on record and therefore, there was no unanimity in the meeting held on 24.4.1998. It is further stated that accordingly the Chairman of the Committee directed to representative of the Board to submit a unit-wise record of the working of different units w.e.f. 1.4.1997 to 31.3.98 within ten days and the Board submitted its comments vide annexure P-3 and further submitted detailed information vide memo dated 18.6.98 to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab giving month-wise information of the workers employed from January 1997 to December, 1997. Copy of the same has been annexed at annexure R-2/3 (Colly). In the replication the petitioner has clarified its stand that the State Board was misguided and as such notification dated 27.11.1998 was issued under erroneous presumption. The Sub Committee in the report has considered various aspects. It has been inter alia stated in the report in para 6 as under :-

"As directed by the Chairman during the meeting of the Sub-Committee the management representative submitted the unit-wise record. Going into the facts submitted by the management at Annexure "A" it has been revealed that 5 units remained in operation for 144 days and 3 to 4 units remained in operation for 115 days during the year 1997-98. Hence throughout the year 3 to 5 units remained in operation for 259 days out of 365 days during the year 1997-98. During the same period 9276.46 lac units of electricity have also been sold to other States. As per Annexure "C" 5 to 6 rakes of coal have been received during 116 days and 3 to 4 rakes of coal during 111 days. Thus 3 to 6 rakes of coal have been received for 227 days out of 365 days during the year 1997-98. Besides this the management has also submitted their cross comments on the representation given by Sh. Mehnga Ram, Secretary, AITUC. This information shows more details of the work and workmen engaged during the year 1997 in the processes for which the Sub-Committee has been constituted. The committee has observed that in each department/process the workmen are being engaged through out the year. Though the number of workmen engaged varies from month to month, yet this fact cannot be over sighted that the work for which the contract labour is engaged is of the perennial nature and remains in operation throughout the year. Moreover, the number of workmen in these processes remains more than twenty. According to Section 1(4)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 this act applies to every establishment in which 20 or more workman are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months as contract labour."

Considering all these aspects, it cannot be said that the Sub-Committee has not considered all the aspects. Though it may not be unanimous it cannot be faulted for the recommendation made. The recommendation, even it was not unanimous cannot be said to be illegal. It is not shown it is necessary that the recommendation has to be unanimous. The word "unanimous" used at two placed mentioned above appears to be a mistake because three cases were to be decided by the committee at that time. Otherwise in the minutes of the Sub-Committee when it was cleared that the management or the petitioner did not agree, the word unanimous would not have been used.

The next question is regarding the perennial nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the work at all these plants is not of perennial nature and, therefore, excess labour will have to be employed which resulted in unnecessary additional burden of expenditure for the same. Learned State counsel has drawn our attention to the replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by respondent No. 1. In para 4 of the replication, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not challenge the decision of the Government in respect of the perennial nature of the processes, it will be proper to quote relevant lines from para 4 in which the said statement has been made. They are as under:-

"The contents of paragraph 4 are misconceived and are wrong for the reason that the writ petition does not lay challenge to the decision per se of the Government in respect of the perennial nature of the processes. It is the process under which this decision was taken that is under challenges...."

Mr. Sanjiv Shanna has relied on the case of Vegoils Private Limited Vs. The Workmen, . He has relied on para 48 of the judgment. It is as under:

"...At this stage it may be mentioned that under Clause (c) of Section 10(2) of the Central Act one of the relevant factors to be taken into account is to consider when contract labour regarding any particular type of work is proposed to be abolished, whether that type of work is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto. When it is shown that in similar establishments this type of work is not ordinarily done through regular workmen, but by contract labour, that is a circumstance when will operate in favour of the appellant."

However, in the present case it is not shown by the petitioner that in similar establishments this type of work is not ordinarily done through regular workmen. The petitioner could have shown similar work at other thermal plants under its control or the power plants in the neighbouring States. This is not down.

Mr. Sharma has also relied on the case of F.C.I. Class IV Employees Union Vs. F.C.I., , It is the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court. It is held therein that provisions of Clause (2) of Section 10 of the Act are mandatory. Learned Single Judge was dealing with the provision of section regarding the appropriate government. The words "appropriate government'''' are mentioned in Section 10 of the Act. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that at the time of issue of notification in that case, the Central Government was not the appropriate Government in respect of establishments of the Food Corporation of India in the State of Punjab and it was thus not even remotely concerned with the consideration of the matter and that it was for the Punjab Government to consider and decide the matter. Admittedly the Punjab Government had not decided to abolish the employment of contract labour in the offices of the Food Corporation of India. It is further held in that judgment that it is clear that the notification dated December 9, 1976 was confined to only those establishments in relation to which the Central Govt. was the appropriate Government on December 9, 1976 an its operation cannot automatically be extended to those establishments in respect of which the Central Government was not the appropriate Government on the date of issue of the notification. In view of the controversy decided in that case and the finding of the learned Judge regarding the same, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Of course, even if it is considered that the observation of the learned Judge that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act are mandatory then also it cannot be said it will mean in view of the reasons mentioned above the mandatory provision had not been followed in the present case.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Ors. 1999(2) S.L.R. 1. It has been held by the Supreme Court in that case that when there were findings of fact by the Labour Court, High Court cannot interfere unless the finding is perverse or there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This judgment does not directly apply on the facts of the present case. However, as it is not shown that the work in the above mentioned plants cannot be said to be of perennial nature and in the replication to the written statement of respondent No. 1 it is slated that it is not in dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a recent case titled Steel Authority of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. etc. etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6009-6010 of 2001) decided by a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has raised three points for determination out of which point No. (ii) is as under :

"Whether the notification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act is valid and applies to all Central Government companies."

It will be appropriate to reproduce the notification which is reproduced in the said judgment. It is as under:

"S.O. No. 779(E) 8/9.12.76 in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board hereby prohibits employment of contract labour on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and washing of buildings owned or occupied by the establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government :

Provided that this notification shall not only apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multi-storeyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialised experience."

It has been held by the Supreme Court regarding the notification inter alia as under:

"A glance through the said notification, makes it manifest that with effect from March 1, 1977 it prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government. This clearly indicates that the Central Government had not adverted to any of the essentials referred to above except the requirement of consultation with the Central Advisory Board. Consideration of the factors mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of which notification under Sub-section 1 of Section 10 is proposed to be issued. The impugned notification apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 10. This is ex facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act. Besides it also exhibits non-application of mind by the Central Government. We are, therefore unable to sustain the said impugned notification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government."

Relying on this finding qua the notification Mr. Sanjiv Sharma has vehemently argued that the finding, has been much akin so far as the words are concerned to the notification under challenge in this case and, therefore, the impugned notification issued by the Government be also quashed. We, therefore, find it proper to quote the relevant part of the impugned notification in this case. It is as under:-

"No. 21/127/98-LLab-lI/4751-In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab in consultation with the State Advisory Contract Labour Board is pleased to prohibit the employment of contract labour engaged in Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Chanauli, District Ropar for the following six processes which are of perennial nature:"

After the above lines, the processes mentioned in para 1 of this judgment are mentioned and we do not repeal the same. The difference between the two notifications is that the notification impugned in this case is not vague at it is in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (in short SAIL) supra. It has specifically mentioned the processes and also mentioned that they of perennial nature. Mr. Sharma has argued that the notification does not reveal the compliance of Sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Act and therefore, it should be quashed in view of the case of SAIL (Supra). So, far as present case is concerned there is some difference. It is that the meeting of the Sub-Committee was held on 24.4.1998 (copy of the minutes is at annexure P/2). There is also a report of the Sub-Committee at annexure R-2/4 which is stated to have been received by the Additional Labour Commissioner alongwith letter dated 24.4.1998. This is already referred to above. Alongwith annexure R-2/3 which is a letter from the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, the working at various plants is shown by the number of workers working from January, 1997 to December, 1998. It can be found from Annexures A to F of Annexure R-2/3. This shows that the work is of perennial nature except that in the first three months of 1997 in Maintenance of Auxiliary Thermal Plant, the workers employed were 14 in each of the three months while in the other months they were 22 or 23. Therefore, the number of workers in these three months being more than half, the difference is negligible. The letter annexure R-2/3 is dated 18.6.1998 while the notification is dated 27.11.1998. Therefore, before issuing notification the Government had the idea of perennial nature of work in this plant. Therefore, the notification may not reveal specifically as to whether the work is of perennial nature or not but there was evidence regarding the same which was considered by the authorities while taking decision regarding issuance of notification. This being the distinction, the argument of learned counsel for the Electricity Board cannot be accepted. As stated earlier, the replication to the written statement also does not show that the pleading regarding the perennial nature in the written statement is not true.

In view of the above evidence the notification does not require to be disturbed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that this petition is a belated one. The notification was issued on 27.11.1998 and this writ petition is filed in January, 20.00. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in answer to this objection has drawn our attention to annexure P/8. Et is a letter from the Government to the Chief Engineer of the Thermal Plant of the petitioner regarding request for review of the notification. The letter refers to the memo written by the petitioner dated 29.3.1999 letter annexure P-8 is dated 7.12.1999 and it is mentioned in the letter that since the matter regarding prohibition of contract labour system and its execution is still pending in the High Court, the management is at liberty to defend its view point for reviewing the said notification before the High Court. This shows that the least time was consumed in reply to the representation made by the petitioner. Learned counsel is correct in saying that this writ petition is not belated.

An objection has been raised by the private respondents that this writ petition is filed by the petitioner through the Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer on the date of filing of this petition had no authority to file the same. The petition is dated 22.1.2000 and it appears to have been presented in the court on 24.1.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in this regard, referred to the noting regarding the filing of the writ petition. It mentions the writ petition is already filed by the workmen for the implementation of the notification. It is also mentioned that Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate has advised to file the writ petition challenging the notification. The matter was put up for the consideration of the Chairman and there is a note dated 10.1.2000 to contact the Advocate Sanjiv Sharma for this. Relying on this note the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the decision to file the writ petition was already taken. This argument can be accepted in view of the notings in the said letter. It may be worthwhile to mention that in the note annexure "A" it has been mentioned that the chances of the said notification being quashed are very bleak but a chance may be taken for which if approved, CE,GGSST be advised to contact Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

In view of the above reasons, though the technical objections of the respondents are not accepted, the petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the notification. Therefore, writ petition No. 955 of 2000 deserves to be dismissed.

This then takes us to the question of the prayer in the writ petition No. 4010 of 1999. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is for directing the respondent Punjab State Electricity Board to absorb the workers employed in plants for which the appropriate Government has issued notification u/s 10 of the Act including the prayer for arrears of pay on account of difference in the pay scale of regular employees and pay already granted to them and other consequential benefits. The Government has already issued a notification of abolition of contract labour. Before the writ petition No. 955 of 2000 was filed, this petition was filed by the workmen with the above prayers. Both the writ petitions were heard together because if writ petition 955 of 2000 was to be allowed, this writ petition would have become infructuous. However, as we are dismissing the writ petition filed by the PSEB, the question of consideration of the prayers in his writ petition arise.

Learned counsel for the respondent-workmen has argued that the petitioner-workmen be regularised as regular workmen and the consequential benefits as prayed for be given. Learned counsel for the PSEB has vehemently objected to this prayer. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the case of Dena Nath and others Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd. and others, . It has been held therein by the Supreme Court that if the principal employer does not get registration u/s 7 of the Act and/or the Contractor does not get a licence u/s 12 of the Act, the persons employed by the principal employer through the contract cannot be deemed to be the direct employees of the principal employer and the consequence of non-compliance with the provisions is exposure of the employer to prosecution.

The learned counsel for the workmen has cited the case of Secretary H.S.E.B. v. Suresh and Ors. 1999(3) S.C.C. 601. It has been held in that case that Safal Karam-charis engaged through the so-called contractor for keeping the Main Plant Building clean were employees of the Board and were not the contract labourers. The Supreme Court has held that the Court should lift the veil to find out real relationship between the workmen and the management. This judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute as to whether employees are employees of the contractors or they are direct employees of the PSEB.

Learned counsel for the workmen has cited the case of Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union and Ors. etc. 1996(6) S.L.R. 233. It is a judgment of the three Judges of the Supreme Court. In that case separate judgments were written by Hon''ble K.Ramaswamy and Hon''ble S.B.Majmudar, JJ. Hon''ble K. Ramaswamy, J. in para 65 of the judgment has observed that though there is no express provision in the Act for absorption of the employees, whose contract labour system stood abolished by publication of the notification u/s 10(1) of the Act, in a proper case, the Court as sentential in the qui vive is required to direct the appropriate authority to act in accordance with law and submit a report to the Court, and based thereon proper relief should be granted. It has been inter alia further observed in that case as under:

"......The workmen, who on abolition of contract labour system have no right to seek reference u/s 10 of ID Act. Moreover, the workmen immediately are kept out of job to delay in enforcement. The management would always keep them at bay for absorption. It would be difficult for them to work out their right. Moreover, it is a tardy and time-consuming process and years would role by. Without wages, they cannot keep fighting the litigation endlessly. The right and remedy would be a teasing illusion and would be rendered otiose and practically compelling the workman at the mercy of the principal employer. Considered from this pragmatic perspective, with due respect to the Learned Judges, the remedy carved out in Gujarat Electricity Board case would be unsatisfactory. The shortcoming were not brought to the attention of this court. So, this part of the direction in Gujarat Electricity Board case is not, with due to respect to the Bench, correct in law. The Dena Nath''s case, as held earlier, has not correctly laid own the law. Therefore, it stands over-ruled. Moreover, the Bombay High Court has correctly held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would direct the principal employer to absorb the contract labour, after its abolition, even through some of the contractors have violated Section 12 of the Act and the appellants have violated Section 7 of the Act. In the judgments under appeal, High Court has direct to absorb the services of the workman from the date of the judgment. The respondent-Union did not challenge it. We are, therefore, constrained not to grant the benefit to the employees of the respondent-Union from the date of the abolition of the contract labour system. We, therefore, uphold the direction issued by the High Court to regularise their services with effect from the respective dates of the judgments of the High Court with alt consequential benefits. Before conclusion, we express our deep appreciation for valuable assistance given by all the learned counsel in the appeals."

It has been observed by Hon''ble Majumbdar J. in the said judgment that though the legislature has expressly not mentioned the consequences of such abolition, but the very scheme and ambit of Section 10 of the Ad clearly indicates the inherent legislative intent of making the erstwhile contract labourers direct employees of the employer on abolition of the intermediary contractor.

Learned counsel for the employer has cited the case of R.K. Panda and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India and Others, . In that case it has been observed that while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court several directions have been given by this court including the one made on 6.8.1992 wherein 879 workmen holding notified jobs were given the option either to take voluntary retirement or to get absorbed on regular basis. However, the matter was finally disposed of by making it clear that the direction issued in the case will be applicable only in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs in view of the fact that contract labour has been abolished in respect of 104 jobs. It is further held that the cause of action, if any, for the petitioners has arisen by their alleged retrenchment made on 31.12.1996. In that circumstances, particularly when in respect of certain employees, industrial dispute had also been raised and a settlement had been reached pursuant to which an award was made, if the applicants were aggrieved they should have adopted that course. It is further observed that the applicant should not be allowed and it was made clear that it was appropriate for the applicants to work out their remedies if available under relevant labour enactments or otherwise. This case does not take the question in dispute any where in view of the facts and circumstances of that case.

Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-PSEB has drawn our attention to the case of F.C.I., Bombay and Others Vs. Transport and Dock Workers Union and Others, . In that case there were two questions involved i.e. (i) which Government is the appropriate government and (ii) the question of automatic absorption of contract labour. Regarding the first question, Hon''ble Supreme Court in that case has held that in view of the conflict of opinion in various cases decided by the Supreme Court regarding appropriate Government and the question of automatic absorption being the important question, the case was ordered to be listed before larger Bench.

The five judges Bench in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) was constituted for considering the point referred to in the case of F.C.I. B Bombay and others (supra). It has inter alia been held by the Supreme Court in the case of SAIL (supra) as under :-

"(5) On issuance of prohibition notification u/s 10 (1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para No.6 hereunder."

The pleadings in the writ petition No. 4010 of 1999 do not reflect the case of the workers'' Union that the contract was a camouflage. This being so, the petitioners in the said petition are not entitled to the relief which they have prayed for.

In view of the above findings, both these writ petition deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-Mehtab Singh Gill, J