1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1541 OF 1999 1. RAVISHANKAR F.C.I. KAMGAR ) SANGHATHNA, SOLAPUR, having ) its office at F.C.I. Godown,) Tikekarwadi, Solapur 413 025) 2. MOHAN VITHALRAO CHINTALWAR ) working with Food Corporation of India, Tikekarwadi, ) Solapur 413 025 ) .. PETITIONERS Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ) having its office at ’Mistry ) Bhavan’, Dinshaw Vachha Road, ) Bombay 400 020. ) .. RESPONDENTS Mr. T.D. Deshmukh i/b A.A. Kumbhakoni for petitioners Mr. R. V. Govilkar for respondents CORAM:-SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED:-27/7/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT:-(Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) . The 1st petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the 2nd petitioner is its member. The respondents have their own foodgrains godowns in various parts of India including the State of Maharashtra. The 2 present petition pertains to the respondents’ foodgrains godown at Tikekarwadi, Solapur. The employees whose names are listed in Exhibit-A to the petition are the employees working in the godown of the respondents situated at Solapur. Petitioner 2 is one of such employees. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that the contract labour system was dispensed with by the respondents and the employees listed in Exhibit-A to the petition have been now employed by the respondents directly. However, there is vast difference between the service conditions of the regular department employees and the employees listed in Exhibit-A to the petition. The petitioners have prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to give to the employees listed in Exhibit-A to the petition the same service conditions as are applicable to the regular department employees of the respondents doing the same/similar work as the employees listed in Exhibit-A to the petition. 3. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront workers & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court was inter alia considering whether the absorption of contract labour, working 3 in the establishment of the principal employer as regular employees, follows on issuance of a valid notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting the contract labour in the establishment concerned. The Supreme Court inter alia observed: "3. Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. 5. On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of 4 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 with 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 establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder. 5 6. If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications". 4. The Supreme Court then observed that the expression "industrial adjudicator" was used by it by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed 6 questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further observed that, therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review. 5. Incidentally it may be mentioned that in Civil Appeal No. 5798 of 1998, Food Corporation of India was the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside this Court’s order directing the Food Corporation of India (the respondents herein) to absorb the contract labour engaged in its depots and left it open to the contract labour to seek appropriate relief in terms of the main judgment. 6. In the circumstances and in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in terms of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). (SMT. RANJANA DESAI,J.) (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)