THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE Nos. 757 and 763 OF 2010 Dated: 02.11.2010 Between: The Steel Plant Canteen Employees Union, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND P.K.Bishnoi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE Nos. 757 and 763 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : These two contempt cases are filed with a prayer to punish the respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the alleged violation of the common order dated 17.01.2001 in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996 as modified on 06.04.2001. The facts in brief are as under: The petitioner in both the contempt cases claims to be a registered union of the Steel Plant Canteen Employees. The petitioner along with 36 others filed W.P.No.14296 of 1992 seeking a direction to treat the petitioners as the regular employees of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and to pay the pay and allowances with effect from the date of filing of the said writ petition. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.26581 of 1996 along with 83 others with similar prayer. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by common order dated 17.01.2001 holding that the workers working in the seven statutory canteens which were established and run by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant either directly or through contractor, were workmen of the establishment for the purpose of the Factories Act only. Accordingly, W.P.No.14296 of 1992 filed by the workers working in the statutory canteens was allowed and W.P.No.26581 of 1996 filed by the workers in non-statutory canteens established and run in the premises of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant through contractor was dismissed. The petitioners in both the writ petitions filed review petitions seeking review of the order dated 17.01.2001 on the ground that some of the petitioners were working in the statutory canteens and therefore, both the writ petitions deserved to be allowed. The said review petitions were allowed by order dated 06.04.2001 and the modified order reads as under: “Therefore, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court referred to in the Judgment sought to be reviewed and for the reasons mentioned therein. I hold that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, 8, 9, 13 to 18, 20 to 22 and 24 to 26 in Writ Petition No.14296/1992 and petitioner Nos. 12 to 28, 20 to 19, 55 to 65, 72 to 79, 81 and 82 in Writ Petition No.26581/1996 who are working in the statutory canteens either established or run by the respondent-company directly or through contractors, are workmen of the establishment for the purpose of Factories Act only.” Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.A.Nos.339 and 1814 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 23.01.2006 held that in view of the exclusion of the canteens and catering services from the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,[1] the appellants/writ petitioners were not entitled to regularisation of their services much less absorption into the services of the respondent-management. Though the petitioners preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment in W.A.Nos.339 and 1814 of 2001, the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. These contempt cases are filed contending that as per the order in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996, dated 17.01.2001, the workmen employed in statutory canteens run by the 1st respondent through contractors are entitled to be treated as workmen of the principal employer and thus they are entitled to be paid wages and other benefits by the principal employer. It is alleged that the respondent - Visakhapatnam Steel Plant failed to take any steps to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996 and that the said action amounts to wilful disobedience and violation of the order passed by this Court dated 17.01.2001 as modified on 06.04.2001 in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996 and as such the respondents are liable to be punished under the Act. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that after culmination of all the judicial proceedings, on expiry of the tenure of the then contractor the petitioners received the statutory dues in full and final settlement of all their claims. Similarly, the workers engaged by the next contractor for the period 2006-2009 had also received all the amounts due in full and final settlement, which itself shows that the writ petitioners were the employees of the canteen contractors and not the employees of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It is also stated that in response to the legal notice dated 10.02.2003 got issued by the petitioners, alleging that the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant had violated the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996, a detailed reply notice dated 01.04.2003 was sent stating that the contractors were following the provisions of the Factories Act and were providing benefits to which the workmen were entitled to. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Division Bench, while dismissing the W.A.Nos.339 and 1814 of 2001, made it clear that the petitioners had no enforceable right to seek regularisation in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It was also held that in view of exclusion of canteens and catering services from the provisions of the Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 10 of 2003, the petitioners were not entitled for regularisation of their services. It is also relevant to note that even in the common order dated 17.01.2001 in W.P.Nos.14296 of 1992 and 26581 of 1996, it was held that the workers working in the statutory canteens alone are workers of the establishment for the purpose of “Factories Act only”. The above order shows that the provisions made in the Factories Act alone are required to be complied with by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant so far as the workers engaged in statutory canteens are concerned. It is the specific case of the respondent that the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant had provided the necessary infrastructure and duly complied with mandates as provided under Section 46 of the Factories Act. Since there is no declaration by this Court that the petitioners are entitled to regular salary or other benefits from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, the allegations in these contempt cases are unfounded. Accordingly, both the Contempt Cases are dismissed. No costs. ___________ Date: 02.11.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd [1] AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2412