RANCHI, India, Feb. 11 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 12:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 10thSeptember 2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4979 of 2025 dismissing the writ petition by directing the appellant-petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail of the alternate remedies before the Industrial Adjudicator under the provisions of the relevant Labor Legislations.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that more than 1600 contract labourers, whose interest the appellant represents, have been employed by the Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC), which is incidentally a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, for periods ranging between 10 and 20 years. He submitted that even the works that they discharge are of a perennial nature. He submitted that, despite these features, the workers are still employed only on a contract basis, thereby denying them the benefits of regularisation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this amounts to exploitation and therefore violates Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon paragraph 9 of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Vs. Their Workmen Represented By Engineering Mazdoor Panchayat Union, 2008 (4) JCR 195, to submit that this decision covers the issue now raised in this appeal.

5. Learned ASGI, defends the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the matter would involve disputed questions of fact which may not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. He relies on Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1 and Leelavathi and Ors. Etc. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP (Civil) No(s). 27984-27988 of 2023, decided on 16th October 2025, in support of his contentions.

6. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the record and the impugned judgment and order of 10th September 2025. Upon due consideration, however, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment and order warrant no interference for reasons set out briefly thereafter.

7. The appellant's main contention in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and before this appellate court is that the contract under which contract workers are being continued is nothing but a sham or a non-genuine contract. In support thereof, the learned counsel has reiterated that the workers are employed for long periods of 10 to 20 years, even though the work is perennial. He reiterated that the only reason for their continued employment on a contract basis is to avoid granting them the benefits of regularisation.

8. Now, the adjudication of the issue of whether the contract between the employer and the contractors, in the context of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, is a sham or nongenuine would involve highly disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot typically be decided by this Court exercising its summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. That is precisely the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, and we see no good reason to take a different view in this matter.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2sW0WzyHO%2Fl4ARBs4Ni5Pq1DugSoiLkVVDS%2BepvfVsT&caseno=LPA/736/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010346802025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.