1. The employer has challenged the impugned award by the Labour Court on a contention that Labour Court is not having the jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred before it as the workmen concerned here were engaged under an agreement by the contractor and not by the principal employer and such a question can be decided only under S. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and not under the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of such contention Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the judgments in the case of Vegoils, (Private), Ltd. v. Workmen [1972 (24) F.L.R 4 (S.C)] Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India, Ltd., Madras v. Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh [1975 L. &. I.C 165] decided by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh, B.H.E.L Workers' Association, Hardware v. Union of India [1985 (1) L.L.N 596], Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers, Ltd. [1992 (1) L.L.N 53],
2. Relying on the aforesaid law particularly the law decided in the case of Dena Nath [1992 (1) L.L.N 53] (vide supra), it has been contended that the aforesaid Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970), merely regulates the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances. It is stated that the said Act does not provide for total abolition of contract labour but it provides for abolition by the appropriate Government in appropriate cases under S. 10 of the said Act, and therefore, when appropriate Government has not decided in respect of the present establishment applying the power under S. 10 of the said Act, the matter could not be decided by the Labour Court as the Jurisdiction of the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act is not authorised to deal with the said matter required to be decided by the appropriate Government only under S. 10 of the said Act of 1970.
3. Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, workmen contended that there was no irregularity on the part of there Labour Court in deciding the said question in view of the law as it stands. In support of such contention the learned counsel for the respondents workmen relied on the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar decided by the Apex Court on 4 April 1963 in Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1963, Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha [1995 (2) L.L.N 59] and Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (1) L.L.N 75].
4. At the time of hearing the only contention of the learned counsel for respective parties was made as above. The petitioner has filed a written argument. While considering the aforesaid contention and the materials available on record including the impugned award as translated at the time of hearing, I find that the impugned award was passed after holding that Sooti Mills Mazdoor Union could represent the concerned workman and that the workman concerned Sri Brij Kishore Tripathi was directly employed by Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company, Ltd., and was discharging the duties of the company.
5. In view of the aforesaid findings on facts and there being no material shown disputing the correctness of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
6. As on facts it was held in the impugned award that the workmen concerned were employed under the present petitioner, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner as regards maintainability of the reference to the Labour Court itself in view of provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, need not be considered as the same comes up for consideration only if on facts the workman concerned is found to be employed by the contractor. As in the present case, the contention as regards employment under the contractor has been rejected and no factual mistake has been shown in such finding, the said preliminary objection fails.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings and as no other question has been raised, there is no ground for interference with the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The interim order, dated 3 May 1979, is hereby vacated.
Petition dismissed.