‘/ h OJ éiJ‘UKSImia $enc IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASUR P T PETITION N0. I6] /200,4r WRI PETITIONERS /’. Mathuralal Aged 40 Yrs S/o Ramdayal R/o Mudapar, Post: Korba Colliery, Dist : — Korba (CG) 2. Puniram s/o Hari Singh k lW Cliery, Mudapar, Dist : - Korba Post (CG) : Korba ’3. Rampal s/o Budhrarn R/o Mdapar, Post : Korba Colliery, Dist : - Korba (C 4. Mohan s/o ngal z Ma R/o Mudapar, Post : Korba Colliery, Dist : — Korba (CG) 5. S. Tigga s/o K. Tigga d P R/o Muapar, ost : Korba Colliery, Dist : - Korba (CG) / 6. Dharma Rao s/o K. Puttan R/o Mudapar, Post : Korba Colliery, Dist : - Korba (CG) Versus , 1. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur . Chief General Manager, SECL, Korba Area, Post : Korba Colliery, Dist : Korba (CG) ,W Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 1 / ow Wol u G) , r 2 A—FK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.2. w ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 13‘ day of April, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 28-5-2004 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur, in case No. CGIT/LC (R)(1 05)/1 992. 2. The Union Secretary, RKKMS (INTUC), Korba Colliery, District Korba raised the following dispute before the Government of ‘ India, Ministry of Labour, which, in turn referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT—cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur: “Whether the action of the management of Korba (East) SECL, Bilaspur in not regularizing s/Shri MathuraLa‘l S/o Ramdayal, Puniram s/o Harisingh, Rampal s/o Budhram, Mohan s/o Mangal, S. Tigga s/o K. Tigga and Dharama Rao s/o K. Puttan, workmen is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?” WRIT PETITION NO; 161 OF 2005 PETITIONER Mathuralal & Others . Versus RESPONDENTS Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur & Others 3. After having considered the documents‘ and affidavits filed by the union, the Presiding Officer, CGIT—cum-Labour Court, Jabaipur came to the conclusion as under : “On going through the claim petition of the union, admittedly the workmen were not engaged by SECL from 1985 onwards till 1992. From the claim statement of union,.it is made out that all the workers were employed since 1985 to 1992 by the contractors and not by SECL. Unless and until the union does not prove that these workers were working under the direct control and supen/ision of the management it could not be held that these workers were employees of the management. There is no privity of contract between the management and the workmen referred above. The Union utter/y failed to prove that all the workmen were engaged as casual labour by the management. Under the circumstances, I come to conclusion that none of the workers mentioned 'in the claim statement were in the employment of SECL and, therefore, there is no question of regularization of their employment. The issue is, therefore, answered accordingly. " 4. The sole contention of the petitioners herein, who were not party to the dispute as their grievance was raised and considered by the Tribunal through the union, is that during V‘ pendency of the ‘dispute before the Presiding Officer, CGIT—cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, the Secretary to the Union died and, as such, their cases could not be considered properly, thus the matter may be remanded back to the \ CGIT—cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for fresh consideration after t: affording opportunity of hearing second time to the petitioners herein. On the other hand, Iearned counsel appearing for'the respondent No.2 submits that the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Jabaipur, has considered ail the afhdavits and documents filed by the union raising dispute on behalf of the petitioners and has come to the proper conclusion that the workmen were never engaged as casual Iabour by the management. It was further observed that there was no privity of contract between the management and the workmen, as the workmen were empioyed by the contractors not by SECL and accordingiy answered the dispute referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. i have heard Iearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. On perusal it appears that no document has been produced o t indicate that there was any privity of contract between the management and the contractors. it was rightly held that the petitioners were the employees of contractors and on their behalf there was no contract between the management and the contractors. The Iearned Presiding Officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners were never employed by SECL and, as such, they were not entitled to regularization in the establishment of SECL. Contention of Shri Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there was no proper opportunity to \\, W present the petitioners’ caseon account of death of Secretary to the Union does not seem to be proper, as documents filed by ‘i the union before the Tribunal have been considered in its letter and spirit. One of the petitioners namely; Mohan did not appear for examination by the management and, as such, the contention of the petitioners that there was no proper opportunity is baseless. The affidavit filed by the union was not duly sworn. 9. Looking from all angles and also jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia, this Court is of the view that there is no procedural irregularity or perversity in the order warranting interference. 10. It is well-nigh established'that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction un'der Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which are not available in the present case. 11. In the result, the writ petition is fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- , l Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge Gowri No order asto costs. r l I l i l