JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), a Central Government Company in Cooperative Public Companies Act challenging the order dated 27.07.2004 passed by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), the opposite party no.1 allowing the application moved by the opposite party no.2-Korwa Safai Karamchari Union, HAL, Korwa Mandal, Amethi, Sultanpur.

3. The opposite party no.1 has allowed the application moved by the Contract Safai Karamchari of the factory premises and directed them to be given the same wages as were admissible to unskilled regular employees of HAL Unit, Korwa.

4. Shri Manish Kumar Singh appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Safai Karamchari Union relating to the factory premises only.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the opposite party no.2-Korwa Safai Karamchari Union, of Sanitation Contract Labourers engaged in factory premises of the petitioner at HAL unit, Korwa, had filed a Writ Petition No.5715 (S/S) of 1996 praying for payment of same salary to them as paid to regular workers of the factory at Amethi. This Court by an order dated 02.04.1997 directed the opposite party no.2 to approach the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1971, While disposing of the petition. Instead of approaching the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Rules of 1971, the opposite party no.2 filed an application before the Labour Commissioner U.P. under the U.P. Rules of 1975. The Labour Commissioner U.P. determined the wages by its order dated 04.04.1998 placing the reliance upon the earlier adjudication with regard to the Lucknow unit of HAL relating to Contract Sanitation Labourers therein.

6. Against the order dated 04.04.1998, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.2254 (SS) of 1998, taking several grounds for challenge including a ground that the order passed by the U.P. Labour Commissioner was without jurisdiction. This Court passed a detailed order wherein it upheld the order passed by the U.P. Labour Commissioner under the U.P. Rules of 1975 saying that under the U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, the appropriate Government was the State Government of U.P. as it had issued the license for the Contractor. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order passed by this Court on 18.09.2001 in Writ Petition No.2254 (SS) of 1998, filed a Civil Appeal No.3659 of 2002 which Civil Appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 18.07.2002, holding that the Central Government is the appropriate Government with respect to the petitioner's Establishment, and left it open for the Contract Labourers to approach the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) for determination of their wages and other conditions of service under the Central Rules of 1971.

7. The opposite party no.2 thereafter, filed an application under Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) of the Central Rules of 1971, praying that its members be given the same wages and other fringe benefits as were being given to directly recruited workmen of their Company working in the HAL Unit at Korwa. The opposite party no.1 issued notice to the petitioner and on 08.05.2003, the petitioner filed a written statement in the form of a preliminary objection, wherein it took the ground that the opposite party no.1 did not have the power to enter into such inquiry and determination retrospectively, as the Contract Labour Licenses had been issued a long time ago and the agreement with the Contractor was already in operation. A second ground raised with regard to the maintainability of the application was of non-joinder of necessary contractors who had engaged the contract labourers from 1985 till date. It was also specifically mentioned that the parity cannot be given to Korwa Mandal Contract Labourers with Lucknow Unit of HAL as it was situated in the h