IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5459 of 2002 NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (NTPC) Limited, Kahalgaon Unit through the General Manager, Kahagaon Super Thermal Power Station having its office at and Police Station Kahalgaon, District: Bhagalpur. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary in the Department of Labour employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Labour Employment, Patna. 3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and conciliation Officer, Bhaglpur. 4. Nirman Associates Engineers & Contractors having its registered office at 4/28.07.2009 Tiljala Road, Kolkata-700 046, through Sri Gangadhar Singh, 5. Dheeraj Singh Tomar, Son of Shri Navin Kumar Singh, resident of village & P.O. Shovnathpur (via Kahalgaon), Police Station Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 19.11.2009 Notice was issued to respondent no.5 and in spite of notice to respondent no.5 no one appears. The petitioner National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTPC) has prayed for quashing the notification as contained in Memo No. 454 dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure-12), whereby the Governor Bihar in exercise of his power under Section 10(2) (a) of Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as I.D. Act) has been pleased to refer the dispute between the Management of NTPC and its alleged workman (respondent no.5) for adjudication of Labour Court, Bhagalpur. The petitioner further pays for declaring that respondent no.5 being a labour engaged by the Contractor, has no right to get a dispute either raised or decided under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Petitioner is a Company. In 1984 a Super Thermal Power Project was sanctioned and was set up by it at Kahalgaon in the - 2 - district of Bhagalpur for producing 210 Mega Watt of energy. Learned counsel submits that in organization like NTPC, there are generally two natures of job, one being a regular job of permanent nature for which the Company employs its own permanent employees and the second is casual and contingent nature of job, which is being managed through job contractors as and when required. He submits that the jobs of casual and contingent nature were awarded to the contractors such as Poonam Construction, Moti Prasad Singh and Nirman Associates etc. He further submits that in fact respondent no.5 was engaged by aforesaid contractors. He submits that the last of the engagement of respondent no.5 was made by Nirman Associates, which was allotted the job of house keeping works of Unit nos. 3 and 4. He submits that NTPC never engaged respondent no.5. In fact respondent no.5 filed C.W.J.C. No. 1029 of 2000 for regularization of the services in the NTPC, which was withdrawn by order dated 27.06.2000. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.5 to controvert the aforesaid position. This Court also does not find anything from the materials on record to suggest that respondent no.5 was engaged by the NTPC in connection with the work entrusted to him by a principal employer. The issue whether relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour, emerges, in case the latter is engaged by a contractor in connection with the work entrusted by a principal employer, came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors Vs. National - 3 - Union Water Front Workers & Ors reported in AIR 2001 SC 3527. The Hon’ble Apex Court after due consideration answered the issue in negative. There is nothing to controvert the submission of the petitioner that respondent no.5 was engaged by contractor entrusted by the petitioner, who is Principal Employer. In such circumstances, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors (supra) would be fully applicable. In the result, this application succeeds and the impugned letter as contained in notification dated 11.12.2001issued under Section 10(2)(a) of the I.D. Act by the Government of Bihar is hereby quashed. This writ application stands allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)