S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 16-6-2000 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal in O. S. No. 261 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the petitioners application was dismissed. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the basic fact of the matter is as follows: a notification purported to be under section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the act, for brevity) was issued on or about 9-12-1976, which is to the following effect:"in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of Contract Labour on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of whih the appropriate Government under the Act is the Central government: provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operation of multi- storied buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialized experience. "

( 2 ) A contractor was appointed by the defence Research Development Laboratory (DRDL, for short ). The petitioners, who are 59 in number, along with others appear to have been appointed by the contractor in the year 1986. The petitioners filed an application before the learned Tribunal in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative tribunals Act praying for a direction to the respondents to absorb them as regular employees of the DRDL with effect from the date of their respective joining in services. The learned Tribunal inter alia held that (1) thefe is no relationship of master and servant between the Laboratory and the applicants; (2) as they have been working since 1986 onwards, a presumption must be raised that the contractor was appointed in relation to the work which comes within the purview of the proviso appended to the aforementioned notification dated 9-12-1976; and (3) in a decision of this Court dated 21-12-1999 in W. P. No. 15186 of 1999 while setting aside an order of the Tribunal in M. Sudhakar Reddy vs. Union of India in o. A. No. 1485 of 1996 dated 9-12-1998, it was directed that-"however, the petitioner s organization is directed that if in future any project is entrusted to them and if the services of the respondents- workers herein are required, they may be engaged in service on priority basis before going to open market. The services of the respondents-Workers herein be continued if they are required by the petitioners- organisation. "which is binding.

( 3 ) MR. P. B. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners inter alia submitted that having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in secretary, Haryana Electricity Board vs. Suresh, the impugned order must be set aside and a direction should be issued by this Court directing absorption of the petitioners in the services of the 3rd respondent herein.

( 4 ) THE Act was enacted not only to prohibit employment of contract labour but also to regulate the same. Section 10 of the act reads thus: "10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central board, or as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as (a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document