RANCHI, India, Feb. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 19:
1. Heard the parties.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner which is a registered Labour Union has prayed to regularise the services of the listed contract workers who were found eligible to be regularised by the Industrial Tribunal based on the Award rendered on the basis of substituted reference by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing the Appeal filed by the Jamshedpur Contractor's Worker's Union wayback on 24.08.1990.
3. The petitioner claims that some of their Union Members needs to be regularised which has not been done.
4. The Award has not been brought on record. Further no order for regularisation can be passed by the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This proposition of law has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Steel Authority of India and Others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others" reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. In paragraph 125 of the aforesaid judgment which deals with regularisation of the contract labour (as in this case). While overruling the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in "Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union" reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is only the industrial adjudicator who has to consider regularisation considering the evidence on record for regularising. So far as regularisation of the contract worker is concerned, paragraph 125 of the aforesaid judgment in details has dealt with as to why the matter should go before Industrial Tribunal. In paragraph 126 the Hon'ble Supreme Court used the word "industrial adjudicator", by design as determination of such question requires enquiry into disputed question of fact and the same cannot be looked into by the Hon'ble High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary to quote paragraph 125 and 126 of the aforesaid judgment"
"125.The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:
(1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government;
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoFQH01IcyvoqUZLPxkjLLM8eG8BEESw%2BwEJ23vl98Ra8&caseno=WPC/5216/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010384712021&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
