AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Y. Eqbla, J.—Heard Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Dr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent this appeal is disposed at the admission stage.
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.7.2004 passed by learned single Judge in WPC No. 3428/04. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned single Judge clarified that the notification dated 9.6.2003 is not stayed.
The office has pointed out a defect with regard to maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order, so we have heard learned counsel on the question of maintainability also.
Before deciding the question of maintainability of the appeal I would like to discuss the relevant facts of the case.
The petitioner appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition being WPC No. 3428/04, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing, modifying, cancelling and varying Notification No. S.O. 664 E dated 9.6.2003 whereby Government of India in exercise of powers conferred u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, has prohibited the employment of contract labour in the job/work of raising and breaking of iron ore in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Limited in the district of Singhbhum with effect from the date of publication of the notification.
The case of the appellant is that in 1996 a group of 96 labourers who were engaged by the Contractor in the job of breaking and raising of iron ore in the mines of Manoharpur filed two writ petitions being CWJC No. 1290 of 1996 (R) and CWJC No. 435 of 1996 (R) praying inter alia to declare them as the workmen under the company and not contract labourers as defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and further prayed to direct the Central Government to take appropriate action for abolition of the contract labour in the mines belonging to the company. Both the writ petitions were disposed by the Single Bench on 6.1.1998 with a direction to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to make proper direction/guidelines as provided under the Act within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Petitioner/ appellant aggrieved by the said judgment preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 59 of 1998 (R) and L.P.A. No. 61 of 1998(R) which were heard and admitted by a Division Bench of this Court. During pendency of the letters patent appeals, a contempt petition was filed against the Central Government and the officials of the Company, which was disposed of with a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Labour to issue direction in terms of orders passed in the writ petitions. The Central Government thereafter, constituted a committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Petitioner/Appellant''s further case is that the Committee submitted separate report and on the basis of the report the Government of India decided not to prohibit employment of contract labour in the iron ore mines throughout the country. However, notification dated 27.12.2000 was issued in exercise of power u/s 10(1) of the said Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour in the job/work of raising and breaking of iron ore in the Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd. The said notification was challenged in the writ petition being CWJC No. 745 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on 22.2.2001. The appellant challenged the said order by filing L.P.A. No. 111/2001. It is contended that the said appeal was allowed and the notification dated 27.12.2000 was quashed on the ground that it does not comply the requirement of Section 10 of the said Act. The Central Government thereafter, after complying the requirement of law issued impugned notification dated 9.6.2003 prohibiting job/work of raising and breaking of iron ore in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Another, and a decision of this Court in the case of Akhil Chandra Gope v. Ram Nath Pandey (2001) 1 JCR 310 SC and submitted that Letter Patent Appeal against the order is maintainable.
There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which may cause serious injustice to the party concerned.
Coming back to the instant case, in our considered opinion in the back ground of the facts discussed herein above, rightly refused to stay the notification dated 9.6.2003 which was impugned in W.P.C. No. 3428/04. However, we make it clear that we have not gone through the merit of the writ application (WPC No. 3428/2004) which shall be decided by the learned single Judge on its own merit.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by learned single Judge needs no interference by this Court. The instant letters patent appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
I agree.