IMPORTANT POINT
High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226 -Writ petition to High Court on interpretation of an order passed by Apex Court in R.K. Panda s case 1994(5) SCC 304-High Court dismissing it as appellants could approach the authority under Industrial Disputes Act and the matter required decision on disputed questions of fact-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court is right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed-(Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 10).
       Held : The question as to whether the concerned workmen had been continuously working for a period of ten years so as to enable them to derive benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K. Panda s case was essentially a question of fact. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) while determining the said question was not acting as a statutory authority. He was merely acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the directions of this Court. The appellants herein, as noticed hereinbefore, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court apprehended that a large number of workmen may be retrenched. They, therefore, sought for clarification by filing the aforementioned I.As. No. 8 and 9 of 1991, which as noticed hereinbefore, were disposed of directing that in the event they are aggrieved by an order of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), they may take recourse to such proceedings as are available to them in law. It is interesting to note that in the interlocutory application marked as I.A. No. 10 of 1995, the appellants themselves stated :
       "... The petitioners now will have to approach the Industrial Tribunal for this, which would take considerable time. In the meanwhile, these 1800 workmen and their families are on the streets......
       There cannot, thus, be any doubt whatsoever that the appellants were fully aware of the fact that they were required to approach the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for ventilating their grievances. The submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan to the effect that the High Court acts as an authority while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced. The order of this Court dated 16th October, 1995, as quoted supra, is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The term authority used in this Court s order dated 16th October, 1995 must be read in the context in which it was used. The appellant in terms thereof could seek a reference which would mean a reference in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It could also approach the authority in accordance with law which would mean authority under a statute. The High Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be an authority under a statute. Furthermore, even otherwise, a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others [(2001) 7 SCC 1]. In any event, the orders of the Chief Labour Commissioner dated 4th January, 1995 also shows that other documents which were placed on record by the workmen had also been scrutinized and they had not been found reliable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 19 to 25)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of an order passed by this Court in R.K. Panda & Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(1994) 5 SCC 304] is in question in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 25th May, 2000 passed by the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 335 of 1998 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant from the judgment and order dated 15th July, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant was upheld.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The workers of the Rourkela Steel Plant filed a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, for a direction that they be held to be entitled to be paid the same pay as is paid to the regular employees and be treated as such on the premise that they had been employed by various contractors and were doing jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to what were being done by regular employees of the Plant. This Court having regard to the various interim orders passed from time to time did not relegate the workmen to avail the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and inter alia, directed :-

"(i) All labourers, who had been initially engaged through contractors but have been continuously working with the respondent for the last ten years on different jobs assigned to them inspite of the replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found medically fit and if they are below 58 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the respondent.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(vi) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such retrenchment.

(vii) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material produced before him by the parties concerned.

(viii) This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract labour has already been abolished in 104 jobs.

4. The appellants therein, however, filed interlocutory applications for directions marked as I.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1991 before this Court wherein the following prayers were made :-

"(a) That the respondents be directed to regularize the service of all the workmen working in any of the 246 jobs at the time of filing of this petition and continuously working since then;

(b) Clarify that the standards of medical fitness to be applied in case of these workmen should be the standards used for regular workmen for their retrenchment;

(c) Clarify that this judgment dated 12.5.94 would also apply to those workmen who had been retrenched in 1990 and 1992 and have not yet been taken back in employment;

(d) Direct the respondents to pay wages to those 292 workmen who were kept out of employment for the period 22.5.89 to 30.11.89, contrary to the orders of this Court."

5. Prayers (a) and (b) were not pressed and in relation to prayers (c) and (d), this Court clarified that if any of the workmen is not absorbed/regularized despite this Court s directions/orders, the workmen concerned would be at liberty to pursue any other remedy or may approach any other authority prescribed under law.

6. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said directions of this Court (quoted supra), 5340 applications were received and out of said applicants 2677 applicants were found eligible for absorption by the management. Cases of 2663 workmen were referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in terms of the said judgment.

7. In its order dated 4th January, 1995, the Chief Labour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 111

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court rightly dismissed the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case.