WP(C) 4502/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr . J. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner Union aggrieved by the Notice Inviting Tender (for sh ort NIT) dated 4-10-2008 issued by the Deputy General Manager(TS/EMCC), Hindusta n Paper Corporation Ltd. Nagaon Paper Mill for supply of contract labourers fil ed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying se tting aside and quashment of the NIT as indicated above and to pass any further orders as the court may deem fit and proper. This court while taking up the matt er for the first time on 15-10-2008 passed following order. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as wel l as Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Hindustan Paper Corporation. Issue notice of motion returnable on 30-10-2008. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners shall cause personal service of notice on the Respondent No. 3 within a week from today and shall file an affidavit before this Court about the date and manner of such service on 23-10-08. Notice on the Respondent No. 4 be served through the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. List the case on 30-10-2008. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 1 may proceed with the impugned NIT, but no final order shall be issued on the basis of such NIT till 30-10-2008. 3. From the order as above it would appear to this court that the r espondent No. 1 was not prohibited to proceed with the impugned NIT but there is a prohibition for issuance of final order on the basis of the NIT till date ind icated therein. It would also appear to this court on the subsequent occasions t he aforesaid interim provided continuation and it thus continues till this date. 4. The petitioner Union is a union of contract labourers engaged in Nagaon paper mill under Hindustan Paper Mill Ltd. and the contract labourers u nder the union have been working since 1985. The aforesaid union then consisting of 220 members of contract labourers who claimed to have worked in various fiel ds of Nagaon Paper Mill approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitut ion which came to be registered as WPC No. 3878 of 1999 to provide them the foll owing reliefs : (1) For a direction to the respondent No. 4to act for abolition of contract lab our u/s 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. (2) For a direction to the Corporation to absorb the petitioners. (3) To provide the petitioners equal wages as paid to the regular employees. 5. This court while disposing the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 22-8-2006 issued the following direction: Considering the submissions made before us, we provide that the Mill and the C orporation may undertake an exercise in the matter, considering the nature of wo rk performed by the petitioner employees and if found suitable, a Scheme may be prepared considering their requirement for additional man power and absorb them as per the existing rules. So far the petitioners are concerned, we direct the Labour Department of the Gov ernment of Assam to examine the question whether the petitioners are performing the same nature of job and whethe4r under the relevant rules and guidelines, the y are entitled to equal wages as being paid to the regular employees. This exerc ise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order . 6. The labour department pursuant to the direction issued by this c ourt by order dated 22-8-2006 conducted an inquiry basing on which the Labour Co mmissioner in exercise of power conferred under Rule 25(v)(a) of the Contract La bour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules 1971(for short the Rules, 19710 pass ed an order directing the concerned authority i.e. the respondent to provide e qual pay and other parks to the contract labourers as is being paid to the emplo yees of the principal employer. The aforesaid order of the Labour Commissioner w as to be challenged in WP(C) No. 3790 of 2007 by the respondent No. 1 along with Nagaon Paper Mill, Kagaj Nagar, Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam arraying as pet itioner No. 2. The writ petition as indicated above came to be disposed of by th is court vide judgment and order dated 4th July, 2011 and while disposing this court passed the following order in paragraph-17 of the judgment. 17. Taking note of the facts and circumstances appearing in this case, the impug ned letter dated 22-06-2007, is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent Nos . 1 to 5 are directed to examine whether the contract labourers of the HPCL, Nag aon Paper Mill, in particular, are also performing the same nature of jobs/works /duties to that of the regular employees of the mill and whether under the relev ant rules and guidelines, they are entitled to equal wages and other benefits as being provided to regular employees. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this ju dgment and orders. 7. It would therefore, appear to this court that letter issued by t he Labour Commissioner is now nonest. This writ petition is filed contending vio lation of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner under the Rules 1971. Sinc e this court by judgment and order dated 4-7-2011 passed in W.P(C) No. 3790 o f 2007 set aside the same, now, it would not be appropriate for the writ petitione r Union to contend violation of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner. 8. Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner while sup porting the writ petition submitted that the NIT dated 4-10-2008 issued by the D eputy General Manager (TS/EMCC) of the respondent No. 1 for supply of contract l abourers at the minimum rate of wages for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled wo rkers as fixed by the Government of Assam cannot be allowed to be proceeded in v iew of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner under the Rules, 1971. The af oresaid contention of Mr. A. K. Dasgupta is strenuously confronted by Mr. J. Roy , learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the setting aside of the o rder of the Labour Commissioner issued under the Rules, 1971 by this court while disposing the Writ Petition No. 3790 of 2007, respondents authority cannot be p rohibited in engaging contract labourers for performance of duties in the paper mill under different sectors. It was also argued by him that this court having n ot found the inquiry jointly conducted in proper manner, directed to make a fres h inquiry by visiting all departments/sectors of the mill and examining the pers ons involved and for the purpose the court had to set aside the order passed by the Labour Commissioner in exercise of power under Rules 1971. It was further ar gued by Mr. J. Roy that for engagement of contract of labourer for performance o f duties in the mill in various sectors, the NIT was issued and in view of setti ng aside and quashment of the order of the Labour Commissioner as indicated abov e, the respondent authority(s) cannot be prohibited from engaging contract labou rers. The minimum wages payable to those contract labourers would be paid by the contractor himself and such responsibility would be always with him/them. It wa s argued further that if after inquiry conducted per direction of this court iss ued while disposing WP(c) No. 3790 of 2007 goes in favour of the contract labour ers, the contract labourers so to be engaged pursuant to the NIT would also be b enefited else not. Mr. J. Roy, therefore, consistently submitted that in view of the quashment of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner, this writ petitio n stands infructuous. Until a decision is arrived at that the contract labourer s engaged in the mill are also performing the similar nature of works and duties the contract labourers engaged by the contractor would be liable to receive the ir wages as per their grade from the contractor. 9. Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Union wh ile arguing contended that the move of the respondent authority(s) for engaging contract labourers under different wages irrespective of their grade, their inte rest would be jeopardised for such engagement. This piece of argument advanced b y Mr. A. K. Dasgupta failed to persuade me to decide this writ petition in favou r of the petitioner Union. Since till date no decision crops up in regard to per formance of similar work and duties by the contract labourers to that of the reg ular employees of the mill, the move resorted to by the respondent authority(s) to engage contract labourer by issuing a NIT cannot be said to be illegal. 10. After meticulous consideration of the facts, the direction issue d while disposing W.P(C) No. 3790 of 2007 and the submission advanced by the cou nsel of the respective party, I am of the considered view that this instant writ petition carries no merit. 11. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.