Point of Law : Neither the recommendations of that Committee nor the notification ultimately prohibiting the engagement of contract labourers by CPWD, has been ever questioned or assailed by the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

1. The petitioners who were engaged as contractual labourers with the Central Public Works Department, [CPWD] have petitioned this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to give effect to the Ministry of Labour Notification No. SO 813 (E) dated 31.07.2002 [Annexure P-3] for the purpose of regularization of the services of the Petitioners with all consequential benefits inclusive of regularization from back date.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to grant the same pay-scale to the Petitioners, which is being granted to the counterparts employees in the CPWD.”

2. The relief in essence is for their absorption in the respondent Department pursuant to the abolition of the contract labour system in CPWD in light of the notification issued on 31 July 2002 in terms of the provisions made in Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Act 1970, [CLRA].

3. Before this Court, it is not disputed that all the petitioners were party to writ proceedings initiated before this Court and which culminated in a judgment rendered in their favour on 26 May 2000. It is also not disputed that they were working as contractual labourers in processes which find mention in the notification of 31 July 2002. It becomes relevant to note that the judgment of this Court rendered in favour of the present petitioners rested on the decision of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Cop. v. ULU (United Labour Union), 1997 SCC (L & S) 1344. The Court while proceeding to allow the writ petition held as under: -

“I have given my considered thought to this aspect in the light of the legal position as well as factual matrix of these cases. There may be some force it is found that contract labour in respect of jobs/work/process undertaken by these contract workers in respect of the offices/establishments where they are working, needs to be abolished and notification u/s. 10 of the Act issued to this effect by the Central Government, these contract workers would suffer irreparable injury and it may become difficult for them to got the benefits of such notification abolishing contract labour system. Moreover, when the Committee is going ahead with the task then in the meantime it would also be not proper if the services of these contract workers are dispensed with and fresh contract labour is engaged in their place. Not only it would cause injustice to these contract workers, it may prove to be counter productive even for CPWD if ultimately notification abolishing contract labour system is, issued u/S. l0 of the Act by the Central Government because at that point of time CPWD would be confronted with a situation where not only the - present contract workers(discontinued in the meantime if not protected) but contract labour engaged in their place and working at that point of time would seek claim for absorption and regularisation with CPWD. That would be a worse situation for CPWD itself then the present situation where these contract workers are allowed to continue in the interregnum. Therefore, the least protection which these petitioners/contract workers require is that till the exercise u/s. l0 of the Act is in the arguments advanced by the respondents. However, it is not necessary to go into these arguments in detail again because of the subsequent developments which have taken place in this case and I am more influenced by these developments while directing the interim arrangement which should be made in the interregnum. After all it would be a question of few months only when the whole exercise has to be completed and decision is to be taken by the Central Government one way or the other. The position as of today is that the Board has already constituted a Committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour deployed in different offices/establishments of CPWD in the schedule annexed to Resolution dated 30th March, 2000. Thus it is not