IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA, PANAJI WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2000 PETITION NO. 124 OF 2000 PETITION NO. 124 OF 2000 Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Petitioner. versus 1. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, a Trade Union, registered under The Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 through its General Secretary Shri P. Gaonkar, having office at Kamakshi Krupa, Khadapaband, Ponda-Goa. 2. Shree Tirumala Services, a Proprietory concern of Mr. M. Channaiah, having office at 811, Zuarinagar, Goa - 403 726. 3. M/s. Raghavendra Works, Proprietory concern of Shri C. B. Patil having office at Navjivan Building, Near Baina Church, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 4. Shri Ajit J. Agni, Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Government of Goa at Panaji. 5. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi. 6. Mr. K. Krishnamurthy, Secretary, Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, Ministry of Labour, Jesalmer House, Mansing Road, New Delhi - 110 011. ... Respondents. - 2 - Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. S. Bandodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. A. V. Nigalye, Advocate for the Respondent No.3(absent). Mr. V. P. Thali, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: P. V. KAKADE & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. DATED: 1ST OCTOBER, 2002. ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT(PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) This Petition has been filed challenging the Award at Exhibit ’M’ passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No.IT/45/98 dated 15th November, 1999. The Industrial Tribunal in the aforesaid Award had held that the Notification dated 9th December, 1976, was applicable to the Petitioner, Goa Shipyard Limited, for the contract workers working in the yard and not for the workers at the residential colonies. The Industrial Tribunal also granted the workers regularization from the date of respective appointments. The Industrial Tribunal also granted pay scale of Rs.2300-24-2420-26-2680 with effect from 1st April, 1993 to the workers in the unskilled category who were appointed prior to 1st April, 1993 and workers who were appointed after 1st April, 1993, the Industrial Tribunal directed that they be fitted in Grade I carrying the same pay scale with effect from the date of appointments. The Industrial Tribunal also directed that Supervisory Grades be also given the benefits. - 3 - 2. The facts leading to the present Petition are stated hereunder:- The Respondent No.1 herein had filed Writ Petition No. 406 of 1993 for seeking relief of regularization/absorption of contract workers in the services of Goa Shipyard Limited, based on the Notification dated 9th December, 1976, issued under the Contract Labour(Regulation and Absorption) Act, 1970. The said Writ Petition No. 406 of 1993 was disposed of by a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19th February, 1998, in terms of the Minutes of the Order which had been filed by the parties. As per para 2 of the Minutes of the Order, the parties particularly the Petitioner agreed for the reference without prejudice to all the rights and contentions of the Petitioner including in particular that Central Government is not the appropriate Government under the Contract Labour(Regulation and Absorption) Act, 1970 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of its two establishments. 3. The Central Government by its Order dated 18th June, 1998, referred the matter under Section 10(I)(D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Panaji. The terms of the reference were "(a) whether the appropriate - 4 - Government in respect of the first Respondent is the Central Government or the State Government?" "(b) whether the Notification of the Central Government dated 9th December, 1976 is applicable to the sweeping and cleaning workers engaged by the first Respondent through their independent contractors at the Shipyard and at the residential colonies?" and "(c) whether the said workers of the said erstwhile contractors are entitled to regularization and/or parity of wages and from what date?" 4. The State Industrial Tribunal admitted the reference and registered it as IT/45/98. On 27th August, 1998, a corrigendum was issued refraining the terms of the reference. The corrected terms of the reference are reproduced hereunder:- "(a) Whether the appropriate Government in respect of the first respondent is the Central Govt. or the State Government? (b) Whether, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the notification of the Central Government dated 9.12.76(Exb. "E" to the Petition) is applicable to the sweeping and cleaning workers (Petitioner) engaged by the first respondent through their independent contractors, at the Shipyard and at the residential colonies? (c) Whether, if the answer to the issues (a) and (b) above are in the affirmative, the said - 5 - workers of the said erstwhile contractors are entitled to regularization and/or parity of wages, and from what date?" 5. The Petitioner herein filed its Written Statement raising various objections and the learned Industrial Tribunal by its Award, at Exh."M", dated 15th November, 1999 granted relief to the workers as aforestated. 6. The Petitioner herein on 29th January, 2000, filed Writ Petition No. 43 of 2000 challenging the Award at Exh."M" dated 15th November, 1999. The aforesaid Petition was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court when the matter was listed before him for Admission. The Petitioner withdrew the said Petition to enable the Petitioner to file a necessary Petition before the Division Bench. Thus, the present Writ Petition came to be filed in this Court on 29th March, 2000. Meanwhile, the Respondent No.1 also filed Writ Petition No.255 of 2001 on 6th August, 2001 challenging the findings of the Industrial Tribunal denying benefit to the workers working in the residential colonies. The Division Bench of this Court had issued Rule on 12th June, 2000 and had granted Interim Relief in this Petition. The present Respondent No.1, therefore, filed S.L.P.(Civil) No.11979/2000 in the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the Order of the Division Bench dated 12th June, 2000 issuing Rule and granting of stay. The - 6 - Hon’ble Apex Court while disposing of the S.L.P.(Civil) No.11979/2000 has passed the Order which is reproduced below:- "As this special leave petition is against an interlocutory order in a pending writ petition and as the service condition of the petitioner workmen are protected. Even on the basis that they are contractor’s employees, no case is made out for out interference under Article 136 of the constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if this is so under the Contract Labour(R & A) Act, 1970, also whatever salary the regular employees get, should be given to the concerned workmen, even on the basis that they are contractor’s employees. If they are not so paid, it would be the liability of the principal employer. This grievance was not considered by the High Court presumable because it might not have been raised before it. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to raise such a grievance before the High Court, which obviously can be considered on its own merits. Subject to this observation the Special leave petition is disposed of". 7. Writ Petition No.255 of 2001, which was filed by the present Respondent No.1, challenging that part of the Award by which benefit was denied to the workers working in the residential colonies, came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 3rd September, - 7 - 2001. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Petition observing thus:- "This Petition is mainly based on the Notification issued by the Union Government, dated 9-12-1976, abolishing the contract labour in respect of sweeping and cleaning workers engaged by the Public bodies including Goa Shipyard Ltd. This was issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act (Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970). There is no dispute that this Notification has been struck down by the Supreme Court. In view of this, we decline to entertain this Petition. If there are any other grievances of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authority or Court for redressal thereof". - 8 - 8. An application for seeking review of the Order of the Court was filed and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by its Order dated 27th November, 2001. 9. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged before us that in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others Steel Authority of India Limited and others Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National National National Union Water Front Workers and others Union Water Front Workers and others Union Water Front Workers and others reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3574, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court struck down the Notification issued by the Central Government dated 9th December, 1976, fully covers the dispute in the present Petition. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the Notification which was struck down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is the same Notification on the basis of which the Industrial Tribunal has passed the Award. He has also urged before us that a connected Writ Petition namely Writ Petition No.22 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court on the same ground. He has, therefore, urged that the Petition needs to be allowed and the Award impugned in the Petition needs to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Girish Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has urged before us - 9 - that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment of Steel Steel Steel Authority of India Limited and others Authority of India Limited and others Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union National Union National Union Water Front Workers and others Water Front Workers and others Water Front Workers and others(supra) in para 122 itself has indicated that the Notification has been struck down prospectively i.e. from the date of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He has, therefore, urged before us that the present Petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the fact that the Notification has been struck down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. In view of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is useful to make a brief reference to para 122(2)(b) which reads as under:- "Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on December 9,1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of S.10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the said Notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any Tribunal or Court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented". 12. A perusal of paragraph 122 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court would indicate that the Hon’ble Apex Court had clarified that no Order passed or no - 10 - action taken giving effect to the said Notification on/or before the date of its Judgment shall be called in question in any Tribunal or Court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented. The Notification issued has certainly not attained finality nor has it been implemented. The Writ Petition challenging the Award which is passed on the basis of the said Notification is pending before us. The Division Bench of this Court while issuing Rule in this Petition has stayed the operation of the Award. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 is devoid of any merit. It is also urged before us that the workers were entitled to parity of wages. We, however, keep this point open. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Steel Authority Steel Authority Steel Authority of India Limited and others of India Limited and others of India Limited and others v. National Union Water National Union Water National Union Water Front Workers and others Front Workers and others Front Workers and others(supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has quashed the Notification on the basis of which the impugned Award came to be passed, we allow the Petition and quash and set aside the impugned Award. We make it clear that the Respondents are free to approach the appropriate authority or the Court for redressal of its grievances. In the event the Respondents do approach the appropriate forum, the said authority shall expeditiously decide on merits the grievances made therein. - 11 - 13. The Petition is thus allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. P. V. KAKADE, J. P. V. HARDAS, J.