The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'consultation' as mandated by section 10 of the CLRA Act and the factors to be considered before issuing a notification under section 10(2). The judgment emphasizes the need for conscious, effective, meaningful, and purposeful consultation based on disclosure of full facts for due deliberation, and the obligation of the appropriate Government to have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment and other relevant factors.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The Central Government (hereafter 'the Govt.', for short) exercising power conferred by section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereafter 'the CLRA Act', for short), prohibited employment of contract labour in the establishment of Lube Oil Blending Plant of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Budge Budge (hereafter 'the IOC', for short) by a notification published in the Official Gazette dated May 25, 2011 (hereafter 'the said notification', for short). The said notification was challenged by the IOC before the writ court basically on a couple of grounds, viz. (i) there was no "consultation" between the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereafter 'the Board', for short) and the Govt. prior to issuance of the said notification, as mandated by section 10 of the CLRA Act; and (ii) the Board denied natural justice to the IOC by not granting an opportunity of hearing and opportunity of making representation against the proposed abolition. The learned Judge, who had the occasion to consider the writ petition, allowed the same by a judgment and order dated September 12, 2017. His Lordship was impressed with the first ground of challenge and as such while setting aside the said notification based on the same, did not examine the other ground. The soundness of the said judgment is questioned in this intra-court appeal by the private respondent in the writ petition (hereafter 'the Union', for short).

2. The affidavit-in-opposition of the Govt. to the writ petition filed before the writ court did not indicate any "consultation" between the Board and the Govt. The learned Judge cannot, therefore, be faulted for returning the finding that there was no "consultation" as mandated by the relevant statute. However, inept drafting of a counter affidavit cannot have the effect of robbing the Govt. or any authority answering the description of "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution to rely on the official records. Also, "consultation" as mandated by section 10 of the CLRA Act does not mean that prior to issuance of a notification there under, it is the sine qua non that the Board and the Govt. represented by its authorized officers, being the consulting parties, should meet together, discuss the points across the table and arrive at an informed decision. In view thereof, we considered it appropriate to look into the records.

3. Mr. Kaushik Chanda, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Govt. having been called upon by us, placed the relevant records for our consideration. Copies of the relevant documents were made over to the learned advocates-on-records for the Union and the IOC.

4. The word "consultation" in section 10 of the CLRA Act would not, in our opinion, require consultation across the table in course of a meeting between the parties but would mean the meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the basis of material facts and points to evolve a correct or at least a satisfactory solution. Since the power conferred by section 10 can be exercised by the Govt. only after "consultation" with the Board, "consultation" in the context should be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful, based on disclosure of full facts for due deliberation.

5. Perusal of the records produced by Mr. Chanda revealed that there was indeed a "consultation" between the Board and the Govt. We may narrate in brief what appears on a reading of the initial note dated April 6, 2011 prepared by a section officer in the Ministry of Labour and Employment on the question of prohibiting employment of contract labour in the concerned plant of the IOC under section 10.

6. The Board in its 76th meeting held on June 3, 2010 had the occasion to consider an order dated April 28, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court while disposing of a writ petition of the Union. By such order, the Board was required to take a decision on the Union