1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3996 of 2006 1. Bokaro Steel Workers Union 2. N.M.D.C. Mines Workers' Union Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited and others Respondents CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P.N. Rai, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ananda Sen, Mr. R. Krishna, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Krishna Murari, Mr. S. Ranjan, Mr. R.R. Tiwary, Mr. P.K. Verma, Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. V.K. Tiwary, Advocates CAV ORDER Reserved On: 20.05.2010 Pronounced On: 02.07.2010 10. 02.07.2010 Challenge in this writ application as made by the petitioners, is against the tender notice dated 07.06.2006 and 21.06.2006 issued by the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited, inviting tender for executing the job of manual raising, picking, sorting and sizing of limestone lump, transportation to railway siding and manual loading into railway wagons at Bhawnathpur Limestone Mines. 2. Praying for quashing the above mentioned tender notices, the petitioners have assailed the issuance of the notices on the following grounds: i. The issuance of the tender notices by the respondents is grossly arbitrary and vitiated by malafides and is in violation of the prohibition imposed by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour Act. ii. The engagement of new set of contractors under the terms of the impugned tender notices, would cause detriment to the three thousand and odd workers and employees of the existing contractors working since the year 1982 in as much as, the workers would suffer loss of Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc under the existing contractors if the new contractor would not recognize any of such rights and would proceed to engage other contract labourers. 3. The case of the petitioners is that Limestone and Dolomite Mines at Bhawanathpur was opened in the year 1972 and the entire activities of the mines used to be carried out through contract labourers. A permanent contract was assigned in 1982 through to seven contractors namely, respondents 5 to 11 who happen to be registered contractors under the Contract Labour Act. The DGM, Bhawanathpur Group of Mines, Raw Materials Division, SAIL is the principal employer.
2 The Central Government issued a notification on 17.3.1993 published in the Gazette of India on 3 rd April 1993 prohibiting with effect from the date of notification, the employment of contract labour in the limestone and dolomite mines in the country in the works specified in the schedule contained therein namely, the works relating to raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone/ dolomite and transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from contractor's dumpers, conveyors and transportation from mines site to factory. After issuance of the notification by the Central Government prohibiting the engagement of contract labourers in limestone and dolomite mines, the petitioners union demanded departmentalization and absorption of the contract labourers working under the various contractors in Bhawanathpur group of mines of Raw Materials Division of SAIL. Though negotiation in the context of the absorption of the contract labour was initiated with the Management of the SAIL, but in violation of the notification issued by the Central Government, the respondent SAIL had issued the tender notice inviting tender for executing contract jobs of manual raising, sizing of limestone lump, etc. in the Tulsi Damar Dolomite Mines in the district of Garhwa. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Union filed a writ application before this court vide CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R). By an interim order, this court, vide order dated 01.08.2000, had ordered for maintaining status quo with respect to the contract labourers and had also stayed the tender notice. On the plea that the Central Government Notification issued under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the respondent SAIL continued to employ contract labours in the limestone mines. The writ application vide CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R) was disposed of by this court by order dated 12.09.2005 with a direction to the SAIL Management not to remove those labourers who have been engaged through intermediaries contractor even if new contractors are engaged. A direction was also issued by the court to the Union to raise an industrial dispute for adjudication in respect of the regularization and absorption of labourers. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order passed in CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R), the petitioner no. 2 raised an industrial dispute raising a demand for regularization of the services of the labourers working under the various registered contractors in the Bhawanathpur Mines. The Management of SAIL has appeared in response to the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner no. 2 also raised an industrial dispute by raising the demand before the Management for regularization / absorption of the labourers when the petitioner Union had apprehended that the old contracts in limestone mines would come to an end on 31.01.2006 and the Management of the SAIL would engage fresh set of
contractors thereby displacing the contract workers. 3 Learned counsel submits that in spite of the fact that a conciliation proceeding was initiated, the respondent Management of SAIL has illegally proceeded to issue the impugned tender notice intending to allot the work to a fresh set of contractors. 6. It appears that the respondent nos. 5 to 11 are the contractors who were engaged by the SAIL Management for executing the works at the Bhawanathpur Mines. Being aggrieved by the prohibition notified by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour Act, the contractors filed a writ application in the Calcutta High Court challenging the notification dated 17.3.1993 issued by the Central Government. 7. By an interim order, the Calcutta High Court had stayed the operation of the notification. Thus, considering that there was no prohibition for engagement of the contract labours in the mines, the Management of the respondent SAIl issued the tender notice inviting tender from contractors for executing various nature of jobs in the aforesaid mines. 8. Upon preliminary hearing of the present writ application at the stage of admission, this court vide the interim order dated 5.8.2006, had ordered as follows: Until further order, the operation of the tender notice dated 7 th June 2006 & 21 st June 2006 in respect to awarding job of manual raising, picking, sorting and sizing of limestone lump, transportation to railway siding and manual loading into railway wagons at Bhawanathpur Garhwa for Bhawanathpur Limestone Mine at Garhwa and Tulsidamar Dolomite Mine shall remain stayed. It will be open to the respondent to ask for modification / clarification of the interim order passed today as and when Calcutta High Court may vacate the interim order of stay or dispose of the case being W.P. 621 of 1994. Pendency of the case shall not stand in the way of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Conciliation Officer to take a final decision relating to regularization of service of the workmen. 9. Counsel for the parties inform that neither the interim order of stay has been vacated nor the writ application pending before the Calcutta High Court, been disposed of as yet. 10. Counsel for the respondent SAIL would argue on the other hand that in view of the interim stay of the notification issued by the Central Government under the Contract Labours Act, it has to be deemed that there is no prohibition imposed against the respondent SAIL from engaging contract labourers for executing the works and jobs in the aforesaid mines. No restriction has been imposed upon the Management of the respondent SAIL from engaging any contractor of its choice who would conform to the standards prescribed. The Management would not therefore be bound to continue to engage the same set of contractors even after the period of their contract had expired. While referring to the direction contained in the order passed by this court in
4 CWJC No. 2342 of 2000 (R), learned counsel submits that in compliance with the direction, the Management of the respondent SAIL had ensured to mention in the impugned tender notice vide clause-12, that the new contractor would retain the workers who are working for 25-30 years under the present set of contractors. Learned counsel adds that in view of the specific condition in the impugned tender notice as mentioned above, contract workers represented by the petitioner Union should have no apprehension whatsoever of either loosing their job or loosing the benefit which had accrued to them for the past 25-30 years of services. As regards the claim of the workers for their absorption / regularization, learned counsel submits that the issue is altogether in a different context and is pending under the conciliation proceeding before the conciliation officer and cannot be made a subject for adjudication in this writ application. 11. In their respective counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 5 to 11, the grievance expressed by them is that since they being the registered contractors under the respondent SAIL and an agreement having been entered into by them with the respondent SAIL for execution of the contract jobs, the period of which has been extended from time to time and still continues, it is not open for the respondent SAIL / RMD to close the contract job of the registered contractors and to issue a fresh tender for employment of other contractors. 12. As informed, it appears that a similar issue was raised by the Palamau Pramandal Khan Mazdoor Sangh, Palamau against the Steel Authority of India Limited vide W.P.(C) No. 6461 of 2005 for quashing the tender notice issued by the Management of SAIL inviting tenders from interested parties for executing the specific jobs mentioned in the tender notice. The writ application was disposed of by this court vide order dated 12.03.2010 with an observation that the Management of the respondent SAIL shall ensure that the new contractor, who may be engaged, shall engage the services of such of the workmen represented by the petitioner's Union, who have been working since the last 25-30 years. In the earlier writ application vide CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R), this court while considering the same nature of grievance expressed on behalf of the contract workers, had observed that till the claim of the labourers is not finally adjudicated by the labour court or the Tribunal, the Management shall not remove those labourers at the instance of the contractors. Even if the new contractors are engaged, the Management shall see that those labourers, who have been working for the last 25-30 years, shall continue to work under the new contractors. It goes without saying that the Management may put a condition in the notice inviting tender to this effect. It is apparent from the observations and directions contained in the order passed by this court in CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R) that having considered the fact that the notification prohibiting engagement of contract labourers issued by the
5 Central Government have been stayed, the Management of the respondent SAIL have been allowed to issue fresh tender notice with the liberty to engage any contractor for executing the jobs mentioned in the tender notice with the basic condition that interest of the contract labourers working for the past 25-30 years, shall not be made to suffer. 13. On perusal of the impugned tender notice, it appears that the Management of the respondent SAIL has incorporated the condition as laid down by the order of this court passed in CWJC No. 2348 of 2000 (R) with a view to protect the interest of the contract workers. Under such circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the workers that in the event of engagement of new contractors, their interest is likely to suffer, appears to be misconceived and unfounded. The objection raised by the respondents 5 to 11 against the issuance of the impugned tender notice are also not tenable. Their relationship with the Management of the respondent SAIL arise out of their respective contracts with the same Management and whatever rights accrue to them under the contract, would be guided by the terms of the contract and the dispute arising if any, out of the contract, would also be subject to adjudication as per the procedure mentioned in the contract itself or by the competent court of law. Such dispute would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court 14. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the objection taken by the petitioners against the impugned tender notice, are without any firm and legal basis and are not tenable. I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In the event the Management of the respondent SAIL would proceed to issue fresh tender notice for executing the works and jobs at its mines under reference in this case, the Management of the respondent SAIL shall be bound to abide by the direction / conditions contained in the earlier order of this court and shall ensure that the new contractor shall engage such workers represented by the petitioner Union, who have been working since the past 25-30 years. Even though, the impugned tender notice may have become infructuous on account of lapse of time, the interim order of stay dt. 5.8.2006 is hereby vacated. Ranjeet/A.F.R. (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)