^y IET 2H8 HKH COU5T OF %&DinA PM3ESH A2 cT&BAH'Iffi^ \. Myit Petition 11o,^©?.4.of 1995, %/s Eayti-i 3?!paaspoyrfey-vt»IIAd|- Tet^iis Be^lonal lebour Gom^i^sioner, JafeaLpiiy aad otlB ^e — PeJixtLXonez* 5QsppH^ents_ J 1« 5- 4- S>BSIllIOr TMBBI A-BfIOISS 226 & ,227 C3E» T2@ GO@S2Jt£UrCI0I OP IIC&IAJQR ISSQlHGrA TOM m SBB mSUm OP GBS2I©eA5l,MApXir^®2C, & A^SO S* 0-R ISStTET& BBGBSSl.M BIRB02IOIS PayfciGula^^ of te©Petitione^ Tl/s Eaytia. 2rmisp03?-t PT-fc, I<td. througli its Direotoy, M^0ol<»: E» E^. EIiajina^- 22, Ralssliak Soeiety, Axadh Gampy Pune - 411027»i Parfcicnlars of the XQSpondents BeglQB.al l»abouy Gommiss loner, yiadhya Pradesh, tTabalpiiy^ SiA. As^a Haa'agei/Ayea Kan^e^ South Basteia Goalfields Ii-bd», &en^ P'rojeet^ -Mstrie-b Silaspur (?g«P) 5,iS:.%ehta,'.' • . Di^e'feor {'S^ Sou Sastei^i O^ilfields Md^^ Seepat Road, \ Bllaspxip (M^P) ITa-feliulal £a3idey, _ G-eneral Seoretaryy M^I^] EoyLa Mazdoor Sa^ghy •PolQo South JhagraMiand Golliery, Mstrie-b Suygu'oa (w«P) \ ^<\ /' \~T r HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION N0.2384/95 M/s Kaytin Traasport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & ors. W.P. No.2526/95 l»J^»V^»Arf» vs. M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sangh and others W.P. No.2626/96 ^•BtCeLt vs. Tfae Regional Labour Commissioner (C) and another AND W.P. No.539/02 M.P. Koyla BSAsedoor Sabha vs. Sub Area Manager, Gevra Project & ors. ORDBR .K SS &i.i . S. .> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION N0.2384/98 M/s Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Regional Laboiir Commissioner (Central) & ors. ORDBR Thls conimon ordcr shall also govcrn thc matters ia W.P. No. 2526/95 (S.B.C.L. vs. M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Saagh and othci-s), W.P. No.2626/96 (S.E.C.L. vs. Thc Rcgional Labour Commiasioner (C) and another) and W.P. No.539/02 (M.P, Koyla Mozdoor Sabha vs, Sub Area Manager, Gevra Project & ors), 2. By ttie prcsent petition, fhe petitioner's niain challenge is to the award dated 25/8/1994 passed by the Arbitrator. It is subm.itted that an agreeraent was ardved at for the period 1/3/1983 to 31/8/1988. Tt. is fiirther siihmitted that the work was commenced at the Gevra Project from December, 1985 aad thercafter the contt'act was temimated on 31/8/l988. Writ petition No. 2526/1995 has been med by the S.E.C.L. against the M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Saagh, Ex.Militaiy Enterprises P. Ltd., M/s Rohinl Associates P. Ltd. and M/s Kaytin Traasport P. Ltd. and writ petition No.2626/ 1996 has been ffled by the S.E.C.L. against llic Rcgioual Labour Couuuissioucr (CeulizU) aiid M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sangh. Thc main rclicf claiuicd ia W.P.No.2526/1995 is to quash tlic award and in W.P.No.2626/ 1996 is to quash thc order dated 19-6-1996 directing ihe petitioner to deposit an amount of Rsr 1,40,88,945.61P withia a period ofthirty days firom @ the date ofthe order. In W.P. No.539/02, the rcUefprayed for is to tlie extent that the impugned award dated 30/10/2001 passed by tlie TribLiual be quashed aiid Uie workcry of Uie maiiagcmeul of SECL bc givcn all conscqucntlal bcncfits. 3. It is contendcd fhat fhc rcspondcnt/Union had filcd applications vinder Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D, Act, registered aa Case Nos. 130/80 to 1/17/80. It is further contended that there was another caee under Section 10 of the I.D. Act by the appropriate Grovemiaent 4. Respondent no.4/Uxiion filed a writ petiiion bearuig W.P. No.3548/87. This pctition came iip for he^nng hefore the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. aad was disposed of vide order dated 16/11/ 1987. The said order is quoted below: "Shri S.K. Gangele for ihe petitioners. He is heard on admiQsion. This petition has beenfiled by the General Secreiary, MP. Koyala Mcusdoor Sangh^ and two others, for giving the same pay and emoluments 1o ihe workers working with the transporters of the South Eastem Coal-fields LtcL, who were working as contract Jabourers with the transporters. The peliiwrierfs dairn io tiave rawed the quesiion for determinaiion of iheir dispute before the Chief (Ceniral) Labour Commissioner, but no actioa appeaf^s to have been taken. The petiiioners have to agitate ihe maiter before Chief Labour Commissioner, as has been held by ihe Supreme Court in BJLRL, Workers Assodation v. Union of Iftdia (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 409), wherein the Supreme Court held ihat under ihe Central Labour (Regulatior. and Abolition) Act, 1970, no invidious distinction oan be made against contracl labour. Contract labour is entitled to the same wages, holidays, hours of work and conditions of servioe, as are applicable to workmen directly employed by the prindpal emphyer of the estabJishment on the same or simiiar kind of work. If, Ihere is any \di.spiite with regard to ihe type ofwork, ihe dispute *g has to be dedded by Ihe Chief Labour Commissioner (Cenirat). Accordingly Ihis petition is disposed of with the direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Ceniral) io enquire inio the queytion rawed by ttve petitioiwrs a^ to whether the work ^nn^ hy the luorknzen of the transporters of </ie same type of work that is heing done by ihe workmen directly eniployed by the principal e^nployer^. 5. It IQ pointed out that the caae waa referred to Chief Labour CoixiiaiQQioner. During the peiidency of the inatter before the Chief Labour Coiiiraissionei^ an agreenxent was arrived at on 29/5/1989, by whix:;h the parties agreed to refer fhe foUowing matter for its adjudication by the Tribunal aad the terms of the i-eference ^re ^s iinder: "Wket^r ihe workers employed by the contractor ai Gevra Project are being paid coirect wages, if noi, to ivhai relief ihey shoald be enii-tled io?a 6. The eigreeraeiit has entered ixito on 2-1,1.1091. The proceedings of fhe uieetiiig ai-e as iinder: "ARBrrRMION PROCEEDINGS DATED 24 JAN, 1991 HELD AT GBVRA. In pur^uance of ihe rninuie^ of the discu^swris beiween ihe mancigement of SECL, MKMS (HMS Unioa) wzd the trwispofi coniractor^ of Geura Projecl in which an understanding was readzedfor giving ihe case pending vide No. 20(32)/87-LS, m before ihe Chief Labour Commissioner (C) for Arbiiraiion io the undersigned in the following terms ofreferenoe: 'After detailed coloration on ihe subject nzatter of paynient io the workers deployed by the contrac^ors, it was agreed between Uie parties unit the matter will be referredfor the arbitration of Shri R.K. Mehta, General Manager (PSsA), SECL, Bilaspur and his . decision shall be final and binding on the parties to the above refefred matier pending ^\ before tfw ChiefLabour Cofmnissioaer.) r.. Further the union contended that the issue of arbitraiion is to decide as to "whether ihe workers deployed by the contrac^ors are entitled for equal payment for similar type ofjobff. The parties to ihp, said arhitration agreemjp.rU were intimated vide letter No, SECL/BSP/GMfP&A)/^/90-91/5-4 dated 9/10.1.91 for hearing in ihe above case on 24. 1.91 at Gevra Project, This has afeo a reference io ihe minutes of discustsions with Chief Labour Commissiofier (C) on daiedll/2.90 at Jabalpur. M/s Kaytin Trm^sport were also intimated. However, ihey did not attend ihe proceedings as they are busy with some other work at New Delhi as intimaied by ihem. (1) At the ouiset the management of Korba (West) and the tran^pori coniracior^ urid ttie union were ndvised to suhmit tlw wiitten staternent to eacfz oiher A copy of whidi Izas already beea submitted io ihe Arbiirator. (2) The Arbiirator mdde a request io Shri Nathulal Pandey, representing MPKMS (HMS Union) that snzce this arbitration has bearing on t}ie case pending under Sedion 33(C)(2) of the ID Act before the CGJT, Jabalpur the same should be wiihdrawn. Since the matter before ihe Arbitrator is the same which is being agitated under said Section of ID Act before CGJT-Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur the above dedsion was aocepted and agreed to by the union. (3) During ihe arbitration proc^edings ihe union Izas submitted the lisi of iuorkers coatractor- wise showing the nature of zuork caiegory, paymeni made by the contractor and ihe payment to be made under law/NCWA IS/FVr before ihe Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has given by the copy on date of the sajne to the contrcLOlors and the mandgement of Korba (W) areafor their verification andfor submitling the details/ rejoinder. (4) T/w Union and ihe transport oontractors and the mancLgement were advised that after receiving the written statement by ihe concemed parties rejoinder should be given by them with a copy ; io the Arbitrator and for that the conoemed \ parties/uftion ivere giuefi 15 days iime Le, upto ^.^i*=— 10th Feb.91. M/s Kaytin Transport Co., who are iwt present in the ioday's proceedings tlzey wouJd also submit the rejoinder (5) T^ie repre^enluiitfe of ihe Union and ifie mnnngem,ent aridl. the tran^port oontra^ors were asked to submit the details pertaining to the case in wriiing to the Arbitrator with a copy alongtvith the rejoinderto oiher parties. (6) After hearing both the partieQ ii was dedded that the management ofKorba (West) snall give the details in writing with regards to ihe commencement of the contract/termuzation of the contract of the folloiving contradors, (1) M/s Rohini Assoaates Pvt Ltd (2) Ex-M.iliiary Enierprises. (3) Kaytin Trwisport, The above information is required to be submiiled lo the Arbiiruior wiihin a period of 15 days. (7) In view of the above ihe parties agreed thai ihe maiter should not be agitated before the Chief Labour Cormnissioner for which the minutes of to-day)s proceednzgs/discussions would be sentloCLC. The next date for arbitration is fixed on 2 n Feb. 1991 at Bilaspur as requested by the parties.v 7. It is pertinent to mentlon that an agreement daled 29/5/1989 had also lakeu place before llie Chief Labour Commlssioncr, Ncw DcUu, m August, 1988 aad on 27th Fcbruary, 1989 aad 29th May, 1989, which is as imdcr: ttln pursuance of the discussions held before the Chief Labour ConunisQioner (Ceniral), New Delhi^ m August, 1988 and on 27th February, 1989 pertaining io ihe raies of payment being paid by the Transport Contt'adors at Gevra Project, the matter was further discussed on 29th May, 1989. After deiailed deUberation on the subject matter of payment to Ihe workers deployed by the Contractors, U was agreed betiveen ihe parties tfzcit the fnatier will be referred for ihe ArbUratloft ofShriR.K. Mehta, General Manager (P&A), SBCL, Bilaspur^ and his decision shall be final and binding on the parties to ihe above referred matter pending before Ihe ChiefLabour Commissionern. 8. On 9/1/1991 thc Arbitrator dircctcd thc inaaagcracnt to submit fhc foUowing dctails; (a) Nuinber of persons iavolved contractor-wiae; (b) The ainoiint bein-g paid, categoiy wise to the contractual workere; (c) Attendaixce year-wise ixi respect of each of fhe persons uivolved; (d) Wages cl^imed, category-wise. Annexiirc-A/1 in W.P. No.2526/95 is the copy ofnotice issued by fhe Arbitrator, 9. On 8/4/1991, tlie Arbitrator asked for tfie parties to submit fhe rclevaat papers. Siace the relevant documents rcquircd for fhe deliberations have not been rcceived, it was decided that another date, wliicli wm be flnal, wm be flxed. Annexure-A/3 In W.P. No.2526/95 is the copy of miaiiley of the meetiug held ou 8/4/1991. 10, On 6/ 11/ 1991, fhc Arbitrator again dirccted thc Contractors to producc ncccasaiy docuiacnts. Aiincxurc-A/4 in W.P. N0.2526/05 is fhe copy of rainutes of the jiieetmg held on 6/11/1991. Certain proceedmgs were drawn, however, it was on 25/8/ 1994 the Arbitrator passed the award by holdiag that the pei-sons eniployed by tlie Contractors Le, Drivers, Helpers, Electriciaas, Mechanics, T}rpe fitter, Welder, ete. are entitkd to m /••^ sunilar wages as beiag pald to the employees employed by the S.E.C.L. on the same job or designation. The Ust ofworkers, which vvas sigiied by the Arbitiutor, is aiuiexed as Auuexui^-R/9 m W.P. No.2384/95. Thc pcnultimate pai-a ofthc awaj-d is as undcr; ^, therefare, givemyaward as foHows: That ihe persons employed by ihe above Coniradors as per the list submitted by the Union are entitled io Wages as per J?VCM/A. The Contractor is liable to pay ihis amount to the workers. The management of SECL, is entitled to make ihe amouni good by recovery from the Bills of the Contractor for tnaking the difference ofpayment to such of ihe Conirctctor workers for the period th^y had worked with the said Contractors." Tliereafter, this award was fot-wanled to tlie Rftgional I.aboiir Commissioner for eiLforcement. On 21/10/1994 (Annexme-R/8 in W.P. No.2384/95). the Dtrcctor (Personnel) forwarded the award to Chief General Maii^er, Gevi-a Arca, tbr takiag action aiid it was dirccted Uiat the copy of the same should be given to the three Transport Contractors. On 8/3/1995, it. was directed that the amount be deposited. 11. Wilt Pcliaou No. 2526/95 was mcd by Ihe S.E.C.L. 011 22/7/1995 agamst fhc award. Thcrcafter, aaofhcr Writ PctiUon No.2626/96 was mcd by thc 8.E.C..L. on 8/7/1996. Thc Rcgional Labour Coinmissioncr (Ccntral), Jabalpur forwardcd thc ordcr to the Du-ector (P), SECL, the ChiefGeneral Manager, SECL, cuid N.L. Pandey, General Secretary, MPKMS. Certain objecUons were raised that it is not enforceable, This award was considered by the Regional Labour Coxmnissioner aiid after noticiag the fact, it was held as under: ^ 7 have ^rwugh discussed comments/counter comments of applicani and non-dpplicant. From ihe above discussions, it is dear ihat on direction from High Court, Jabalpur, CLC (C), New Delhi was ^uring on ttw nuiiter whether riaiure ofwork carried hy trawsport employees engage.d hy contrajdtflrs ifs same or similar to ttw wark carried by regulccr emphyees employed by Prindpal employer ie. SECL. Hearing was in progress and with a view io expedite ihe matier boih parties agreed to refer the matter io Shri R.K, Mehtafor dedding the iQQues pending with ih,e CLC (C), New Delhi The said arbitration was accepted outside Section 10A of LD. AcA by way of mutual agreement and got it converted into settlement by getting ii registered with the CLC (C), New Delhi. 5mce the ctrbitralion was accepted outside Section 10A of ihe l.D. Act, the same was noi forwarded io Ministry for publication. Management did not object at any place that the agreement should be signed in proper pre^cribed profonfui arul w to be publwfied un/Jjp.r Seation 10A (3). Aftar signing thp. fsaid settlemeai on uery firsi prowedifu) before ihe arbitrator, applicant Union was persuaded to wiihdraw all cases pending befor-e labour court cmd filed the copy of minuies before ihe CLC (C), New Delhi wiih a view not to agitate an ihe matter pending before him. CLC (C), New Delhi aocepted and dispoQed of the applicaiion accordingly. Both the parties appeared before arbilrator and after a long hearings Shri R.K. Mehta gave his award. Tke award was arculated by the management and it was forwarded io all the contractors. Arbiiration acoepted outside Section 10A of I.D. Act by way of mutual settlemeni is also binding as accepted by the parties and uriy afnuuni payable uruler ^ucfi settlerfieni cari be recovered under Section 33(C) (1) ofI.D. Ad. Ttie applioant (Uaioa) tras submitted detailed calculation of amount payable io workmen and to be recovered bui the non-applioant (marzagement) did noi submit any comment on ihe said calculations hence ihe calculation submitied by the appUcani is accepted for Rs. 1,^0,88,9^6.61 payable to Shri Bhagirathi Yadav and 159 oihers. However, before issue of RRC, I direct the non-applicant i.e. management of SECL, Gevra Area, Gevra, Dist. Bilaspur (M.P.) io deposit Ihe said amount i.e. Rs.l,^f0,88,9^16/~ (Rupees One crore forty Jcics eighty eight thousand nine hundredforty stx: only) with this office within 30 daysfrom the daie ofisszie ofthis order.ff f^ 12. The aforesaid direction was chaUenged m W.P. No.2626/96 and the prayer is to the effect that the impugned order, Annexure- P/l,diiccUiig the pedliouer to depo^it cux amouut of Rs. 1,40,88,945.61P within a pcriod of30 days from thc datc ofthc ordcr, bc qziashcd, by issuancc of a wnt in fhc naturc of ccrtiorari. 1,3. W.F. No.2626/96 came up for hearing beforc the High Court of M.P. on 19/7/ 1996. The High Court passed the interim ordcr dirccting deposit of50%ofthe amount under the orders ofR.L.C. 14. The Union filed application for vacatmg the stay. The raatter came up for hearing on 30/7/1996 and the High Coiirt of M.P. passed the oider. This order was chaUenged before fhe Hon. Suprcme Court by the Union. The Hou. Supreme Court passed the order dated 28/2/1997, tiie relevant portion thereof reads as uuder: 9The remaining 50% of ihe arwuni under the award sfiall be disbursed to tke workmen ooricemed on their providing surety/Qecurity ofany regularemphyeeofthQ respondent or any other securtty, for making good t)w payment intke event they faU in the writ petUion. The ~said security/surety shall be fumished to the satte/action. of the R.L.C., Jabalpur, after notioe to the r^spondents. The workmar. as weU as the person fumishing the surety/security shaU be properiy idenlifled before tfze R.L.C. by the appellant. With the afordRaid. mndifim.twn in thjR ordl.er dated 30/ 7/1996, t/ie appeal fe disposed of. No oosts,}f 15, An I.A. No. 1/97 was filed by the Management for clarification of the onler dated 28/2/ 1997 aad the Hon. Supreme Court passed the oider dated 9/5/1997, fhe rclevaat portion thereof reads as under: rr 10 "Afler hearing the leamed oounsel for the parties, we are of ihe opinion ihat there is na ambiguity in the order dated 28/2/1997. However, for implementing the order, ihe foHowmg agreed procedure jfiay be followedfor dwburseTfienl oflhe dues: 1, The wfiole procedure of eiisiribution of the amouni dues will be videographed so as to indude the worker receiving ihe amount as weU cis the surety. Tlzis will be done a1 ihe cosi of the management Those of the workmen and sureties who are ex Qeruicemen ivill be identified by the production of their discharge certificates. Those of the workmen and sureties who are drivers will produce their driving licences for ihe purpose of identifioation. In case ofdispute regarding the identification of other workmen and surelie^ they woutd have to be ideniified by the Regional Lubour Comrnission^r, whjo is a cflmpetenl authjority ufider the Cofttract Labour Act. It is made dear that the security will be 2. 3. 4. 5. fumwhedas per the order ofthis court and will be other than a ckarge on ihe Provident Fund of the 'regular employee9. 6. The management shall be ai liberty io inform the Contractors regarding the disbursentent. TTie absence of the Contractors at the time of disbursement shall, however, noi keep on hold the disbursement proceedings." We hope that the disbursement of the amounte shall be effected expeditiozisly and the Regional Labozir Commissioner shaJl, as far as possible, coTfipletc Ihe process wiihin ^ix weeks. LA. No. 1 of 1 997 is accordingly disposed of. ff 16. Pursuaat. to the directions of fhe Hon. Supreme Coiirt, fhe Regional Laboiir Commissioner compUed the order aad submitted the rcport to the Registrar General of Supreme Court. The compliaace report is dated 6/10/1997 (Annexure-R/2(2) in W.P. No.2626/96). 17. During Uie pendency of the proceedlngs ta these petitions, on 27/4/2004 leamed counsel for Unlou submitted that the SECL has rccovcrcd ihc amotuit froiu soiuc of thc Coutructur, It was also ; ^ 11 submitted that rcceipts thercof have been filed in W.P. No,2626/96. Thls Court passed (he order that if the amount has ali^ady becu recovered, theu tlieit; shotild be uo diHictilty. Lcanicd counscl for S.E.C.L. sought timc to scck iastructions aad filc affidavit of Chairman-cuin-Maaaging Dircctor, Thc affidavit was ffled on 10/5/2004 in W.P. No.2526/05 by Shri M.K. Thapar, Chairm.cui-ciun-Mcui.aging Director cuid the Chaimicua. has categorically stated that ttie amount of Re. 20,14,204/-has been recovered from M/s K.T.P. Ltd. and the aaxount ofRs.63,90,369/- has been recovercd from M/s R.A.P. Ltd. It is also stated in the affidavit that the fimoiint of Rs.46,84,373.36P could not he rccovercd from Ex Military Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., as the Compaay had left the area and the whercabouts have not been traceable. 18. Paragrapha 2,6,8 ond 9 of the afiBidavit swom by the Chairnian-ciun-Managin.g Director ie peitbient and is quoted below: '2. Tfiul, by itw irtsslunt petiiwri, S.E.C.L. tww challenged award daied 2S.08.1994 pcissed by the sole arbiirciior Sfiri R.K. Afe/rfa. 77ie Hon'ble Court of M.P. vide Order dated l^f/OS/96 directed tke petitioner io makepaymeni of 75% ofarrears as per ihe award to the workers, accordingly R.L.C. (C) Jabalpur, vide order daied 19/6/1996 directed management of Gevra area to deposit a sum of Rs.l,40,88,9^16»00in ihis office within 30 days of this order 6. Thal, in oompliance of the order of the Hon'tole Apex Couri the amount deposited by the petitioner has been disbursed under the supervision ofR.L.C. (C). Out of 160 employees, 136 were identified and aooordingly ctiequesfor amounl ofRs. 66,48,355=00 has been disbiirsed to them and the remaining 24 cfieques anwufti to Rs.7,15,758=12 fuvs been 12 w!< ?••' ^ retumed The disbursement was done from 28/5/97 io 30/5/97, 19/6/97 to 26/6/97, 21/8/97 and 8/9/97 at Bilaspur and Jabalpur. 8. Ttiut, by ttw impugrufd awurd the urbitrutor tia^ fixc.d ihy. Uahiliticfi ofthjp. three mntraj(vtors af{ unrfer: i) M/sK.T.P.Ltd. Rs.30,l^,203»56 ii) M/s Ex Military Enterprises (P) Ltd. Rs.46,84,373^36 iii) M/s R.A.P. Ltd. Rs.63,90,368»69 Total Rs.l,40,88,9^b»61 As per the awardjtJze contraclors are liable to pay the amount io ivorkers and ihe Tnanagement of S.E.C.L. is entitled to make the amount good by recoveryfrom ihe bills ofthe contractors for mdking the difference of payment to such of the contrador workers for the period they have worked with the suid conlractors. 9, Ttiat, the S.E.C.L. Mwzagemeni fzas wUJzfield the following sums agamsi the payments made/deposited by S.E.C.L. towards ihe liability of the cont^actors. i) M/s K.T.P. Ltd. Rs.l0,00,000s00 from KuQmunda Area, andremaining 20, 14,.204-00/rom Hasdeo Areafrom tizeirsisler concem. ii) M/s R.A. P. Lid. Rs. 63,90,369=00." 19. M/s R.A.P. Lld. and Bx Milltaiy Enlerprises Pvt. Ltd. have uot filed auy wril pciidiou, ouly M/s Kaytiu Ti'fcuiyport F>vl. Ltd. has mcd thc writ pctitio>a bcarlag No.2384/95. 20, Durrag thc cour»c of hcaring, cascs wcrc listed on various dates. On soiac datca, leamcd counscl tricd fhcir bc»tto gct fhc niatter setded but fhey could not settle cuid contended that fbie same be decided on inerite accorduxgly. It is recorded. 21. The contention raised by Shri Ali Asgar, leamed counsel on behalf of M/s Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd. is that the competent authority to dccidc thc matterwas ChicfLaboxir Commlssioucr and 13 not the Arbitrator. He further submitted that the Arbltrator had no jurisdiction. For ftiis, rellaace has been placed upon the judgment of ttic Apcx Coxirt ia fhc casc of Deenctnath cundt ethers y^ Nctti^fwl FertMxers amf others rcportcd in AXR 1992 QC 4S7 flPara 3Q), Pwrc^QS o{ thc judgmc.nt iii thc caac rcportcd ixx ABR 1993 SC 457 reads as under: a22. It is noi for ihe High Court to inquire into ihe cjuestion and dedde whether the employment of contract labour in any process^ operation or in any other worfc in any estabUshment should be abolished or not Tt is a matterfor ihe decision of the Govemrrwni after considering ihe matter, as required to be considered under Section 10 of the Act The only consecjuences provided in the Act where eUtiar ttus prirudpal entployer or ihe labour conlractor vialales thje provision of SecMort^ 9 a^d 1 ^ respeatively is the pefial prouisiofz, as enuisaged ufider the Acl for whicfz reference may he made io Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, We are thus of ihe firm view tliat in proceedings under Ariide 226 cf the Constitution merety becaiise contrac^or or the employer had violated cmy provision ofthe Act or the rules, tfie Cow-t oould not issue any nwndcmvus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the prindpal employer We would not Uke to express any view on the dedsion of the Kamataka High Court or of Ihe Oujaral High Court (supra) since these dedsions are urwter challenge in this Court, but we wauld place on record that we do not agree with the aforequoted observations of ihe Madras High Court about the effect of rion'regwiration of the prinapal employer or tfie non' licensing of the labour contraclor nor imth the vieiu of Bonzbay High Court ia ttie aforesaid oase. We are of the view that the deasiorzs of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court are oorrect and we approve ihe same. It ia submittcd fhat eissuxximg thin Court finds that thc Arbitrator had jzirisdiction, then he had exceeded the jurisdiction. It is fuilher subudtted fhat even though fhe paities agree4 before the Chief Laboxxr Commissioner, New DeUii, yet the provisions 'contained