1. Writ application seeking implementation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and a labor agreement. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 553
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA
versus
Union of India
Decide on May 12, 1994
Important Points
Grievances regarding the implementation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and agreements cannot be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Subject
Labour Law - Contract Labour Regulation
Act Referred
Headnote
CONTRACT LABOUR - Implementation of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - The court held that the grievance regarding the implementation of the Act and an agreement cannot be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also stated that no separate direction was required to be given in the writ application as directions had already been issued in a previous writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ application seeking a direction to implement the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and to implement an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grievance regarding the implementation of the Act and the agreement cannot be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also stated that no separate direction was required to be given in the writ application.
Issues: The issues involved the implementation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the grievance regarding the implementation of the Act and the agreement cannot be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The writ application was disposed of accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
REMMA BHANDARI
REMMA BHANDARI
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks implementation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and a labor agreement, and regularization of workmen. (Para 1 )
3. Grievances regarding the implementation of labor laws and agreements cannot be entertained in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
4. Grievances concerning the implementation of labor laws and agreements are not maintainable under Article 32 and should be pursued under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 )
5. Writ application disposed of with a direction to pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 )
6. Can a grievance regarding the implementation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution?
No, such grievances cannot be entertained in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution; the appropriate remedy is to pursue the matter under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 )
7. How are requests for the regularization of workmen handled when directions have already been issued in a related writ petition?
If directions regarding the regularization of workmen have already been issued in a previous writ petition, no separate direction is required in a subsequent writ application. (Para 1 )
( 1 ) THIS writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha, for a direction to the respondents to implement the provisions of the CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 and to implement the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 30-5-1987. No such grievance can be entertained in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioner, if so advised, may pursue the remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. So far as, the direction to treat the workmen as regular employees of the respondents is concerned, we have already issued directions in Writ Petition (C) No. 617 of 1986. No separate direction is required to be given in this writ application. This writ application is disposed of accordingly.
