Page 1

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2771 OF 2013

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3104 OF 2011)

BALESHWAR RAJBANSHI & ORS.

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT TRUST OF

CALCUTTA & ORS.

…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January

29, 2010 passed by a division bench of the Calcutta High court in an intra-

court appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of that court. By

the impugned judgment, the division bench has carved out an exception in

favour of the respondent, Port Trust of Calcutta (hereinafter, “Port Trust”)

from a notification issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of

the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the

Act”) and held that the notification “would not in any way affect the right of

the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

one time measure of (sic. to) RITES, another Central Government

Organization”.

3.

The controversy in this case centres around a notification dated July 7,

2005 issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Act. The

notification was issued after due consultation with the Central Advisory

Central Labour Board with regard to the conditions of work and benefits

provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in

sub-section 2 of section 10 and it prohibited the employment of contract

labour “in the works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing,

restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in the establishment of Kolkata

Port Trust, Kolkata” with effect from the date of publication of the

notification in the official gazette.

4.

After the issuance of the notification, the appellants who claimed to

be engaged for the works covered by the notification for more than two

decades through different contractors approached the Calcutta High court in

W.P. No.20171 (W) of 2005 seeking a direction from the High Court to the

Port Trust to abolish the system of giving the works covered by the

notification to the contractors. On the other hand, the Port Trust also

approached the High Court in W.P. 22545 (W) of 2005, questioning the

validity of the notification. The two writ petitions were heard together by a

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

learned single Judge who decided to consider the writ petition filed by the

Port Trust first, as the decision on the legality of the notification would have

a direct bearing on the writ petition filed by the individual workmen.

5.

The learned single Judge upheld the validity of the notification and

by judgment and order dated May 15, 2007 dismissed the writ petition filed

by the Calcutta Port Trust.

6.

The Port Trust challenged the judgment, dated May 15, 2007 passed

by the learned single Judge before a division bench of the High Court in

intra-court appeal. The division bench by order dated March 31, 2008

directed the Port Trust to approach the Ministry of Labour through the

Ministry of Shipping for resolving the issue.

7.

The order passed by the division bench was challenged by some

individual workmen before this court in civil appeal No.7394/2009 (arising

from SLP(C) No.22912/2008). The appeal was allowed by judgment and

order, dated November 6, 2009 passed by this Court¹. The order of the

division bench of the High Court dated March 31, 2008 was set aside and

the High Court was asked to rehear the Port Trust’s appeal against the

judgment of the single judge (MAT No.2363 of 2007 and FMA No. 430 of

2008) and to dispose it of in accordance with law.

1 (2010) 1 SCC 116

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

8.

After remand, the division bench of the High Court once again heard

the appeal and disposed it of by a brief order, modifying the order of the

learned single Judge and notwithstanding