judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Presiding Labour Court (II) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case-Arbitration dispute No. 164 of 1989.

2.The following question was sent to the Labour Court for decision under Section 4(iv) of the U.P. State Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘State Act):

“Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the Appendix should be declared permanent? If so, then from which date and with what other particulars?”

3.The Labour Court held that 61 labourers connected with the case do not possess the right to be declared permanent under the employer- respondent No. 1. So far as the question to be made permanent under the contractor, it was found that they did not want to be declared permanent under the contractor.

4.Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the question as to the effect of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the “Act”). In the background of the definition of the word “employer” as in clause IV of Sectio