JUDGMENT

(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 594 of 2004

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2123 OF 2007

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12961 of 2003)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing reference to the Industrial Tribunal and granting interim protection to the workers in the Civil Appeal relating to SLP(C ) No. 594 of 2004.

First Respondent-General 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 Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No.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 are non-official respondent 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 forum - Industrial 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 following directions:

"(i) The 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 Ist 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 respec