IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 405 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/02/2008 in WP NO : 19401 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Coromandel Fertilizers Limited, Visakapatnam a Company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Coromandal House, Sarder Patel Road, Secunderabad- 500 003, having its Factory at Post Box No. 125, Visakhapatnam-530 001 rep. by its Vice President (manufacturing) Mr.M.Seetaram. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 Visakhapatnam Contract Labour Union D.No. 33-5-1, Allipuram Visakhapatnam, rep by its General Secratrary. 3 The Additional Secretary to the Government Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.I) Department. Government Secretariat Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Labour, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The impugned order is merely a remand order, whereby the Labour Court has been directed to decide the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Union Waterfront workers[1]. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19401 of 1998 dated 25-2-2008 is just and proper. The Labour Court had made the award by considering law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union[2], which has been now overruled and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Labour Court to consider the case in the light of the judgment reported in Steel Authority of India (supra) and decide the same. While deciding the case, we are sure that the Labour Court shall consider the following observations made in para 125 (5) of the aforestated judgment. “On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.” Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has assured to extend his cooperation to the Labour Court so that the case can be decided at an early date. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd July, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR [1] (2001) 7 SCC 1 [2] (1997) 9 SCC 377