-:.^KS?r'yssst-. ^ r i /fy •;;A^' 4F^ j'.-j-Cid CQURT OF CHHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Patition 1758 of 1988 Petitiongr Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat, through its President. Aotion Committee of oontract Labour (Shri indrapal Kewat), aged about 26 ysars, Gram Changeri, P.0. Parasi, Distfc BiSaspur '$IS!:HI!g!!ia»— pespondents 1) Union of Intiia, through Seoretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New De!hi rp 2) Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Shahdol, MP. 3) General Manager, Hasdeo area of SECL, P.0. Jhagrakhand (South) Co!llery, Distt. Sarguja MP. (Writ Petition under Artlcie 226 of the Constitution of Intjia) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnthotri, J. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Baraik, Advocate appears on behaif of Shri S.K. Beriwai, Standing Counsel for Union 01 India/respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri P.S. Koshy, oounsel for the respondent No.3. (Passed on 5^.2008) The petitioner is a union of workers of South Eastern Coaifields Limited., employed by the General Manager, Hasdeo Area of SECL, Dist Sarguja. Aocording to t'ne petitloner, the workers were engaged in incline openlng work under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and rules famed there under. The union of the workers raised a dispute for concitiation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centrai), Shahdol. On submisslon of the respondent No.3 that the employment of the petitioner was through the contractor and as such they are employees ofthe contractor, not the empioyees of the SECL, She failure report t'nereof was submitted to the Government of India on 2-12-1993. According to leamed counsei, without aiving opportunity to the petitioner/Union, the respondent No.1 refused to refer the dispute for adjudloation before the Central ,<?.-l5-'33p sf ''.:.-. ii ! 'S'A B ,. '^.r^^ "ilaS^ UB Government industrial Tribuna!. The order dateci 8-3-1994 (Annexure P/4) reads as under: "The workmen were engaged for the contractor viz Shri Hasanand Mewani and by the man^ement of M/s. SEC Ltd. Therefore, the employer employee regularehip does not exist between the Management ofS.E.C. Ltd., and the workers in question". 2) Being aggrieved, the petittoner preferred this petition under Artiole 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order dated 8-3-1994 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.1 , be quashed and the di%>ute be referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudioation. - 3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and peruslng the records, it appeara that the case of the petitioner has been singied out for non-reference to the Centrai Govemment Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The question asto whether the petitioner/workers were engaged by the contractor or by the management of SECL itself raises a dispute. Apart from that, the grievances of the petltloner cannot be examined wit'nout proper adjudication of the matter. it was, therefore, desirabie to refer the dlspute to the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunai for adjudication. 4) For the reasons mentioned, this petition is allowed and the respondents No. 1 and 2 is direoted to refer the matter to the Centrai Qovernment Industriat Tribunai for adjudication of t'ne industrial disputes raised therein as earty as possibie preferabiy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. -•——— _.-- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Kaiu