CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8415 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 19 ,2011 Prem Kumar @ Prem Chand and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Raman Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking direction commanding the respondents not to employ Security Guards to meet the requirement and instead give employment to the petitioners. The said submission is made primarily on the basis of direction passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Water Front Worker, JT 2001 (7) SC 268. What was observed in this case is that if the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8415 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of concerned establishment has been issued, prohibiting employment of contract labourer in any process, operation or any other work of any establishment and wherein such process, operation or other work of the establishment, the principal employer intends to employ regular workman, he shall be given preference to the erstwhile contract labourer if otherwise found suitable. It is also observed that if necessary, the employment be given by relaxing the condition so as to maximum age appropriately taking into account the age of workers at the time of their initial employment by the Director. Food Corporation of India could be accused of violating these instructions in case any labour is employed on regular basis. Concededly, some casual labour is being employed instead of offering the same to the petitioners. As per the counsel, this action of the respondent-FCI is in violation of the prohibition contained in the CLRA Act. The complaint in this regard may be made before any appropriate Forum. Since no regular employment is being offered by the respondents, direction to employ the petitioners on the basis of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, would not be appropriate. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 19,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE