Judgment :-

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 29, 2010 passed by a division bench of the Calcutta High court in an intra-court appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of that court. By the impugned judgment, the division bench has carved out an exception in favour of the respondent, Port Trust of Calcutta (hereinafter, “Port Trust”) from a notification issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”) and held that the notification “would not in any way affect the right of the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure of (sic. to) RITES, another Central Government Organization”.

3. The controversy in this case centres around a notification dated July 7, 2005 issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Act. The notification was issued after due consultation with the Central Advisory Central Labour Board with regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in sub-section 2 of section 10 and it prohibited the employment of contract labour “in the works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing, restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in the establishment of Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata” with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette.

4. After the issuance of the notification, the appellants who claimed to be engaged for the works covered by the notification for more than two decades through different contractors approached the Calcutta High court in W.P. No.20171 (W) of 2005 seeking a direction from the High Court to the Port Trust to abolish the system of giving the works covered by the notification to the contractors. On the other hand, the Port Trust also approached the High Court in W.P. 22545 (W) of 2005, questioning the validity of the notification. The two writ petitions were heard together by a learned single Judge who decided to consider the writ petition filed by the Port Trust first, as the decision on the legality of the notification would have a direct bearing on the writ petition filed by the individual workmen.

5. The learned single Judge upheld the validity of the notification and by judgment and order dated May 15, 2007 dismissed the writ petition filed by the Calcutta Port Trust.

6. The Port Trust challenged the judgment, dated May 15, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge before a division bench of the High Court in intra-court appeal. The division bench by order dated March 31, 2008 directed the Port Trust to approach the Ministry of Labour through the Ministry of Shipping for resolving the issue.

7. The order passed by the division bench was challenged by some individual workmen before this court in civil appeal No.7394/2009 (arising from SLP(C) No.22912/2008). The appeal was allowed by judgment and order, dated November 6, 2009 passed by this Court [(2010) 1 SCC 116]. The order of the division bench of the High Court dated March 31, 2008 was set aside and the High Court was asked to rehear the Port Trust’s appeal against the judgment of the single judge (MAT No.2363 of 2007 and FMA No. 430 of 2008) and to dispose it of in accordance with law.

8. After remand, the division bench of the High Court once again heard the appeal and disposed it of by a brief order, modifying the order of the learned single Judge and notwithstanding the notification under section 10 of the Act, allowing the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure to RITES, another Central Government organization.

9. The division bench simply noted the submission of the counsel for the Port Trust that laying and linking of the railway tracks did not come within the daily affairs of the Port Trust; that it was required for the purpose of easy movement of cargo; a