The Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a contract as sham without a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which is necessary for such a determination.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Contract Labour Court”) with the following reliefs:

“(A) To admit and allow this petition;

(B) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (I.T.N.) No. 721 of 1998 and further;

(C) To stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (I.T.N.) No. 721 of 1998 pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to grant ad-interim relief as stated in terms of Para 13(C) hereinabove;

(E) To award the costs of this petition;

(F) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice;”

2. Brief facts of the present petition are in nutshell as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner – Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited that the petitioner is engaged in the permanent and perennial activity of generating and transmitting electricity and for this purpose, it has one of its thermal power stations with automatic plants located at Wanakbori, Taluka Thasra, District Kheda.

2.2 The petitioner obtained a Certificate of Registration dated 28.6.1982 under the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 for engaging Contract Labours through the Contractor for carrying out certain activities in the Ash Handling Plant and Demineralization Plant (“D.M Plant” for short) of the petitioner. The petitioner has time and again, entered into contracts with licensed Contractors for the supply of contract workmen to carry out certain activities in the Ash Handling Plant and D.M Plant of the Board. The 89 contract workmen were never in the picture when the said contract came to be assigned for the first time by the Board in favour of the respondent - Contractor and no employees of the Board were engaged in performing the work similar to the one performed by the contract workmen of the Contractor engaged in the Ash Handling Plant and D.M Plant.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1, though not being the Union of the contract workmen, had filed Special Civil Application No. 2221 of 1996 before this Court on behalf of the 89 contract workmen of the Contractor for making them permanent in the employment of the petitioner and this Court, vide order dated 30.04.1996 disposed off the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.1 - Union to proceed with its demand before the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), and also directed the concerned State Authorities to decide the question of making a reference of the disputes in this behalf to the Tribunal.

2.4 The aforesaid dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 10.05.1996 and, thereafter, the same came to be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad and the same came to be registered as Reference (I.T.) No. 142 of 1996 and, thereafter, it was renumbered as Reference (I.T.N.) No. 721 of 1998. The question referred to the Tribunal was with regard to the regularization of contract workmen and not the validity of the contract between the petitioner and the Contractor. The Respondent No. 1 filed Statement of Claim before Tribunal and, thereafter, the petitioner filed Written Statement raising an objection regarding maintainability of reference and demand raised by the Union. The respondent No.2 Contractor also filed the written statement. The petitioner, the Union and the C