The legal obligation of the appellant to process the claim of the workmen employed by the private contractor and take appropriate decisions in accordance with the law.

A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ.

This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.2012 in W.P. No.2747/1998. It is apposite to reproduce the reliefs claimed in the said writ petition. The same read thus :

"(1) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 to treat the employees as shown in Annexure R-6 as the employee of the respondents.

(2) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 that after treating the workers employees of the respondent No.1 & 2 they be regularised and absorbed in the services of respondents.

(3) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 that after the absorption workers and their regularisation be given all arrears and differences of salary and other consequential benefits as are given to the regular employee.

(4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also be granted together with costs."

2. The respondent-Sangh had questioned the contract awarded to M/s Singh & Sons, who was the successful bidder for work of "Ripping of stone roof of the existing gallaries, drivage of haulage and travelling drifts and one number of inter connection between the haulage and travelling road" at Bhawani incline of Ambara Colliery, Kanhan Area.

3. The respondent-Sangh submitted a representation to the Chief Labour Commissioner regarding allocation of the said work to a private contractor for a period of one year. That representation was eventually rejected on 5.8.1996. Against that decision, the respondent-Sangh filed writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1056/1997, which, however, was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.1997 with direction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) to record finding as to whether the appellant has resorted to any unfair labour practice by giving labour contract to private contractor for six months initially, thereafter to be renewed for another period of six months.

4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner after due inquiry submitted his report dated 10.6.1998. The report concludes that the work given to the private contractor was covered by the prohibited category and could not have been given by the appellant Company in terms of notification dated 21.6.1988 bearing S.O. No.2063 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. That report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not been challenged by the appellant. It is the respondent, who, once again approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2747/1998 praying for the reliefs reproduced hitherto.

5. The learned Single Judge, after analysing these aspects opined that it was necessary to inquire into the fact as to whether the workmen whose names appear in Annexure-P/6 were employed by the contractor. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, accordingly, directed the appellant to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether or not the workmen whose names appear in Annexure-P/6 were employed by the contractor and thereafter to take a decision in accordance with law. That inquiry was ordered to be conducted by the appellant expeditiously. The appellant, instead has questioned the correctness of the said decision by way of present intra-Court writ appeal.

6. The argument of the appellant, is that, the conclusion reached in the inquiry report to the effect that the appellant had admitted that the work allocated to the contractor was falling under the prohibited category is incorrect. Further, the finding recorded in the inquiry report travels beyond the scope of inquiry directed by this Court in the previous writ petition between the parties. It is then contended that the fact whether the workers employed by the contractor can be treated as workmen of the appellant Company and need to be absorbed as such is a matter, which can be adjudicated only before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, being an industrial dispute. These are the broad contentions canvased before us.

7. The first contention deserves to be stated to be rejected having regard to the observations found in the order dated 11.