The decision-making process must provide sufficient opportunity to all parties involved, and the decision of the appropriate Government cannot be interfered with if it is not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the decision of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in prohibiting employment of contract labours in different Departments of National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), Damanjodi and for a direction to the opposite party no.3 to pay wages to the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high-skilled contract labours working in the NALCO, Damanjodi at the rate to their counterparts working in regular establishment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that the petitioner and other contract labours belong to the Scheduled Tribe. They are working in different Departments of NALCO, Damanjodi. They approached the Central Government for abolition of contract labour system and regularization of their services in NALCO, Damanjodi. There was no response. They approached this Court in several writ petitions for abolition of contract labour system and regularization of services. This Court disposed of the writ petitions directing opposite party no.1 to consider the representations and take a decision within three months. The Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB) in its 80th meeting held on 20th & 21st October, 2011 at New Delhi decided that all cases shall be taken up together as one case. The CACLB considered the report of Dy. CLC(C), Bhubaneswar and decided not to accept the report as the issue was not examined by the Dy. CLC(C) strictly in terms of Sec.10(2) of the Central Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (“CLRA Act, 1970”). Accordingly, CACLB formed a sub-committee to study the working of contract labour system in the establishment of NALCO, Damanjodi and to make suitable recommendations whether or not the employment of contract labour in the jobs mentioned in the representations of the workers union be prohibited in the said establishment keeping in view the provision of Sec.10 of the CLRA Act, 1970 and to submit its report within three months from the date of its constitution. Since no decision was taken, they filed WP(C) No.16059 of 2014 before this Court seeking a direction to the opposite party no.2 to take a decision in the matter. The subcommittee fixed the date of meeting on 18.9.2014. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the sub-committee to take a decision in its meeting and submit a report to the opposite party no.2. A direction was issued to the opposite party no.2 to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of the report of the sub-committee. The petitioner requested the opposite party no.2 to fix a date of hearing. Opposite party no.2 assured the petitioner that the case would be taken up in the next Board meeting. On receipt of the letter of intimation, the petitioner as well as affected contract labours found that the letter addressed to Bharat Khosla (one of the contract labourer) was communicated by the opposite party no.2 on 13.8.2015 with a wrong pin code. The said letter was served in the house of Bharat Khosla on 27.8.2015. On verification, it was found that the said letter was received at Damanjodi on 25.8.2015 and thereafter communicated to Mathalput for service. Besides that no letter was issued to any contract labours including the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner and the affected contract labours ascertained from the office of NALCO that another letter dated 17.8.2015 was issued by the Under Secretary of the opposite party no.2 to all participants to attend the 86th meeting of the Board to be held on 26th-27th August, 2015 at 11.00 AM in Mumbai. But then, the letter dated 17.8.2015 was never served on the contract labours as well as the petitioner. On enquiry, it was found that the said letter was communicated on 17.8.2015 from New Delhi and was received at Damanjodi on 24.8.2015. On further enquiry, the petitioner and other affected contract labours found that the said letter was addressed to Bharat Khosla. The petitioner