The Court

1. These Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent have been filed against the judgment dated 22.02,2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 745 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant, thus upholding the correctness, legality and validity of the impugned notification issued on 22.12.2002, in terms of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The judgment under challenge in these appeals being very very short is reproduced herein below :

"22.2.2001. Heard the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 27.12.2000 issued by Govt. of India in exercise of the power conferred under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. 1970, whereby the employment of contract labour for raising and breaking of iron-ore in the establishment of Manohar-pur Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd. has been prohibited.

It appears that matter was fully considered by the Advisory Board and thereafter this decision has been taken. In my opinion, such job under the contract labour for raising and breaking of iron ores ought to have been prohibited immediately after the country got independence. However, of late, the Government act accordingly. I am not inclined to interfere with the notification. This writ application is accordingly dismissed."

2. The text of the notification under challenge in these appeals reads thus :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. 1970 (37 of 1970), the Central Govern- ment, after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the jobs/works of raising and breaking of iron ore in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Limited, Chiriya, Dist. Singhbhum [West). Bihar with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette-"

3. Relying upon a very recent Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has made a twofold submission with regard to the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He contended that first and foremost the impugned notification suffers from a basic defect of a vital jurisdictional nature, inasmuch as it was not issued by the appropriate Authority as defined in Section 2(l)(a) of the aforesaid 1970 Act and secondly that it did not meet with the requirements as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act. in as much as the notification did not suggest or indicate that the appropriate Government had considered the parameters of, and the requirements contained, in Section 10 before ordering prohibition of the Contract Labour in Manoharpur Mines of the Steel Authority of India Limited.

4. On the question of appropriate government, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that in the case of The Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. The National Union Waterfront Workers, (supra), the Supreme Court by culling out various principles and some relevant guiding factors has now held by an authoritative pronouncement that in a case like the present one the appropriate Government is the State Government in as much as the establishment in question is not being carried on by or under the authority of the Central Govt. He in particular on this aspect, referred to the guiding principles as summarised in para 46 of the Judgment reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1.

5. On the question of the impugned notification suffering from non-compliance of the requirements of law as contained in section 10 of the Act the learned counsel referred to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court contained in Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the aforesaid judgment in Steel Authority of India Limi