Case: Rashtriya Chem. &amp; Fertilizers Ltd.  Vs. General Employees Association

al Employees Association (in short the Association) had questioned legality of the Circular dated 8.11.2000 issued by the Central Government conveying its decision refusing to abolish and prohibit contract labour in the Civil Works and Carpentry establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and FertilizersNo.1, in W.P. No.7543/2000. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition (who arerespondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal) were dummy and sham contractors. It was conceded by the writ petitioner that the said issue cannot be considered by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) and the appropriate forumIndustrial Tribunal has to go into such question. The writ petitioner requested that order may be made referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal and meanwhile to afford interim protection. While accepting this prayer, the High Court, however, issued the followingThe appropriate Government, i.e., the Central Government is directed to make a Reference of the following demands to the Industrial Court for adjudication within two months from today;(a) Whether the contracts between the 1st respondent M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are sham and bogus and are a comoufiage to deprive the concerned contract employees of the benefits available to permanent workmen of the 1 respondent?(b) Whether the employees listed at Exhibit A to the petition should be declared as permanent workmen of the 1 respondent?(c) What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the employees list at Exhibit A to the petition?(ii) The Industrial Tribunal upon receipt of such Reference shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same as early as possible and in any case not later than 30.6.2004.(iii) The interim order passed by this Court on 29.12.2000 shall continue until receipt of the communication by the petitioner from the Industrial Tribunal that the Reference has been received and for a period of two months therefrom. The petitioners shall be at liberty to make application before the concerned Industrial Tribunal for continuation of the interim relief upon receipt of the communication that Reference has been received and if such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal within a period of four weeks therefrom. Needless to say that if for any reason the Industrial Tribunal is not able to dispose of the application for interim relief that may be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from such application, the industrial Tribunal shall be free to pass an appropriate order for continuation of the interim order until disposal of the application for interim relief. In case interim order on the application is adverse to the petitioners same shall not be given effect to for a period f four weeks.(iv) It is clarified that in case there is any change in the Contractor by respondent no.1 the new Contractor shall engage the same workers subject to the order of the Industrial Tribunal.(v) It is further clarified that the above interim order is confined only to 39 employees who are presently working on the establishment of respondent no.1 through respondent nos. 5 to 10.(vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the Industrial Tribunal.The connected Civil Appeal (relating to SLP(C) No.12961 of 2003) is in respect of workers in a canteen in the Thar factory of the Appellant No.1. The firstfiled W.P. No.2940/1998 for a declaration that the employees (whose names were shown in the Annexure to the writ petition) were the regular employees of Appellant No.1 and for consequential reliefs. A Division Bench of the High Court has given following directions while disposing of the petition by judgment dated 23.1.2003:(i) The appropriate Government that is the Government of Maharashtra is directed to make a Reference of the following dispute/s to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication within two months from today.(a) Whether the contract between the Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and the contractor/s is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the employees as per Annexure A of the benefits available to permanent workers of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.?(b) Whether the employees whose names are shown in Exhibit A annexed to this order are employees in the Canteen of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether such employees should be declared as permanent workmen of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.?(c) What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the employees as per the list Annexure A?(ii) The Industrial Tribunal upon receipt of the Reference shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same as early as possible and in no case later than 3 1. 12. 2003.(iii) The interim order passed by this Court on 24.6.1998 shall continue until receipt of the communication by the Petitioners from the Industrial Tribunal that Reference has been received and for a period of two months therefrom.The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make application before the concerned Industrial Tribunal for continuation of the interim relief upon receipt of the communication that Reference has been received and we observe that if such application is made by the Petitioner, the same shall be disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal within a period of four weeks therefrom. We record the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that no objection shall be raised by the said respondents about the maintainability of the application for interim relief by the petitioner. Needless to say if for any reason, the Industrial Tribunal is not able to dispose of the application for interim relief that may be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from such application, the Industrial Tribunal shall be free to pass an appropriate order for continuation of the interim order until disposal of the application for interim relief.(iv) It is clarified that in case there is any change in the Contractor by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the new Contractor shall engage the same workers subject to the order of the Industrial Tribunal.(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the Industrial Tribunal.

Reasoning:
10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants once the respondentapproached the High Court on the foundation that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Act) applied, it pre supposes existence of a valid contract. What the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) wanted was quashment of Notification for reconsideration. In view of what has been stated in second SAIL case (supra) the High Court has to consider whether the stand taken in the writ petition was inconsistent. In the instant case the writ petitioner itself accepted that certain issues could not be decided in the writ petition. That being so, High Court giving directions in the nature done, do not appear to be appropriate. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have given the directions in the manner done and should have left the respondentto avail remedy available in the I.D. Act.11. It is open to the respondentif it is so advised, to move the appropriate State Government seeking reference of the purported dispute to the Tribunal. It is for the State Government to consider whether any reference is called for. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the desirability or otherwise of making reference.