Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Sheikh Jahangir Ali And Others v. Calcutta Port Trust And Others

Calcutta High Court

Jan 27, 1999

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition was filed by a group of workmen who claim to have been engaged, over different periods spanning about 12 to 15 years, by respondent 6 (Chanda Vulcaniser (Private) Ltd.) as vulcanisers for maintenance and repair of conveyor belts at the coal berth of the Haldia Dock Complex, Calcutta Port Trust. The petitioners assert continuous and uninterrupted performance of those duties through the contractor (respondent 6) and seek regularisation/absorption into the regular establishment of the Calcutta Port Trust, alleging that their work is continuous and perennial and that the Port Trust is the principal employer in substance.

The writ petition proceeded in the High Court with counsel appearing for the petitioners, for the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities, and for respondent 6 (the contractor). The petitioners relied on several Supreme Court decisions addressing abolition of contract labour and absorption of contract workmen in establishments where work is perennial. The respondents contested both the factual characterisation of the work as perennial and the legal entitlement to absorption in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Court disposed of the petition with directions that the petitioners be granted leave to apply to the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Act and with interim orders and timelines specified for further action.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the vulcaniser work performed by the petitioners is of a continuous and perennial nature such that it calls for regularisation/absorption into the principal employer's establishment.
Whether, and in what circumstances, workers engaged through contractors acquire a right to absorption in the regular establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, particularly following abolition under Section 10(1) of the Act.
What is the role of a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act in creating or enforcing any right to absorption, and whether a High Court can, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, direct absorption in the absence of such a notification.
What interim relief and procedural steps should be ordered where no notification under Section 10(1) has been issued but a writ petition claims perennial employment and seeks absorption.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as advanced through counsel Sri Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya)

The petitioners performed duties as vulcanisers continuously for about 12–15 years and the work was of a continuous and perennial nature requiring whole-time employees (including three-shift operation), making departmental employment appropriate.
Because their tasks were necessary to keep port operations running, the Calcutta Port Trust was effectively their principal employer despite the engagement through respondent 6.
On the basis of long, continuous service and existing judicial pronouncements, the petitioners had acquired a semblance of a right to have their services regularised/absorbed.
There had been comparative regularisation of other contract workers (garden and conservancy staff absorbed after a bipartite settlement), and denying similar relief to these petitioners amounted to discrimination and a breach of Articles 14 and 16 (and was argued to touch Article 21).
The petitioners relied on Supreme Court precedents that ordered abolition of contract labour in certain establishments and absorption of the workmen where work was perennial.

Calcutta Port Trust and Authorities' Arguments (as advanced through Dr. Tapas Banerjee and others)

The nature of vulcaniser work was not continuous or perennial; petitioners worked only intermittently (about 14–15 days a month) — mainly when conveyor belts snapped or were damaged — and no routine preventive maintenance/permanent overhaul requiring whole-time staff was generally needed.
No notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, had been issued to abolish contract labour in respect of vulcanising jobs at the Calcutta Port Trust; therefore, the regime of Section 10 procedures had not been triggered.
Cited the Supreme Court's Dena Nath decision holding that issuance of notification under Section 10(1) does not automatically convert contract labour into direct employees of the principal employer and that High Courts could not, under Article 226, direct such deemed absorption (the respondents relied on this principle).
Even other relevant Supreme Court rulings recognize that claims for regularisation on the ground of long service often involve disputed facts which are more appropriately decided by a tribunal on evidence rather than by the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

Contractor (Respondent 6) Arguments (as advanced through Sri Debashis Das)

The work is intermittent and not perennial; the contract between Calcutta Port Trust and respondent 6 had expired in November 1995 and had not been renewed.
Respondent 6 had trained the petitioners to perform the vulcaniser duties over the years; therefore the petitioners could not be made direct employees of the Calcutta Port Trust because respondent 6 remained their principal employer.
The writ petition was misconceived and liable to be dismissed with costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India [1987 (1) L.L.N 480]	The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of employing labour through contractors for performing work of permanent nature; where work was necessary/incidental to the industry and satisfied requirements of Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour Act, the Court directed appropriate action (consultation and notification) to abolish the contract labour system and, if no decision taken within prescribed time, ordered absorption of workmen into departmental employment on same wages and conditions.	The High Court relied on this decision as illustrative of the remedy of absorption where appropriate action under Section 10 is not taken within the stipulated time; it is cited to support the remedy of absorption in certain circumstances and is referred to in the Court's eventual directions (see paragraph 35).
National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India [1995 (2) L.L.N 634]	Addressed absorption of railway parcel porters working as contract labour; established that parcel handling work was permanent/perennial in nature and could keep petitioners continuously engaged; led to directions for absorption limited to the quantum of perennial work available.	The Court cited this decision as an example where the Supreme Court ordered absorption of contract workmen in similar factual circumstances (continuous/perennial work) and used it to explain the line of authority that preceded later developments.
R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 378]	Involved directions for absorption of labourers initially engaged through contractors; also cited for the proposition that claims for regularisation on the ground of long service raise questions of fact for adjudication by a tribunal rather than for determination in writ jurisdiction.	The Court treated R.K. Panda as part of the jurisprudential background and as authority highlighting that some regularisation claims require fact-finding; it informed the Court's view that factual disputes may ordinarily be for a tribunal, but did not preclude judicial review where Section 10 has been invoked or relevant.
Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha v. Union of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 378]	Observed that claims for regularisation on ground of long service involve questions of fact which normally should be determined by a Tribunal on evidence, and not by High Courts or the Supreme Court in writ jurisdiction.	The Court cited this decision to underscore the factual nature of many regularisation disputes and to explain limits of writ jurisdiction in such matters; it used this to frame the approach toward fact-sensitive claims in the present case.
Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. [1992 (1) L.L.N 53]	Held that on issuance of notification under Section 10(1) the contract labour employed did not automatically become direct employees of the principal employer and that the High Court under Article 226 could not issue a mandamus to deem contract labour to have become employees of the principal employer.	The respondents relied on this decision to argue against the High Court directing absorption; the Court noted Dena Nath but explained that it was later considered and overruled by the Supreme Court in the Air India case (see next row), limiting its present applicability.
Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (1) L.L.N 75]	Held that abolition of the contract labour system can ensure a right to regularisation and that a direct relationship of employer and employee may be recognised between the principal employer and the workmen; further observed that High Courts can examine whether contract labour is employed in violation of the Act or continued despite prohibition under Section 10(1) and direct appropriate relief and reports as necessary.	The Court treated Air India as the later authoritative decision which overruled the contrary view in Dena Nath and as establishing that abolition under Section 10(1) gives rise to enforceable rights to regularisation that can be addressed in writ jurisdiction; it formed the cornerstone of the Court's conclusion that such rights arise after publication of the notification under Section 10(1).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first set out the factual contentions: the petitioners asserted continuous/perennial employment performed through a contractor; the respondents disputed continuity and emphasised lack of a Section 10(1) notification. The Court reviewed the judicial trajectory on the subject starting from earlier Supreme Court decisions that directed abolition and absorption in certain circumstances, then the Dena Nath decision which took a contrary view, and finally the Air India decision which the Court described as having overruled Dena Nath.

Key analytical points drawn from the judgment text:

Evolution of authority: The Court considered a line of Supreme Court decisions. It noted earlier cases (Catering Cleaners; Railway Parcel Porters) where the Supreme Court had ordered abolition and absorption in similar factual settings, then noted Dena Nath's narrower technical approach, and concluded that the later Air India decision overruled Dena Nath and established the principle that abolition under Section 10(1) gives rise to a right to regularisation.
Legal effect of Section 10(1): The Court analysed the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the case law to extract the ratio: upon abolition of contract labour in an establishment by publication of a notification under Section 10(1), the affected workmen acquire a right to be absorbed in the regular establishment, and such right is enforceable in the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Application to present facts: The Court found that, in the present case, no notification under Section 10(1) had been published in respect of vulcanisers employed as contract labour in the Calcutta Port Trust. Because the entitlement to absorption flows from abolition via a Section 10(1) notification (as per the governing authorities), petitioners could not immediately claim straightaway absorption in the absence of such a notification.
Procedural accommodation: Given that the petitioners claimed the right but no notification existed, the Court granted leave to the petitioners to make an application to the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) within a specified short period. The Court then set binding timelines for the appropriate Government to decide (three months) and for the Calcutta Port Trust to take further steps on the Government's decision (one month). The Court also ordered interim status quo on the petitioners' services for specified periods tied to the Section 10(1) application and its outcome.
Contingent remedy: The Court provided a further contingent direction: if the application under Section 10(1) was not disposed of within three months, then, following the precedent in Catering Cleaners, the Calcutta Port Trust was directed to absorb the petitioners into the regular establishment within three months thereafter.

The Court thus combined legal exposition of the effect of Section 10(1) with practical procedural directions to ensure that the petitioners had a clear, time-bound route to seek abolition and, if necessary, to secure absorption in accordance with established Supreme Court rulings.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

DISPOSED OF with directions and conditional relief.

The direct operative outcomes ordered by the Court (as stated in the opinion) are:

The petition is disposed of with leave to the writ petitioners to make an application to the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, within a fortnight from the date of the judgment.
The appropriate Government is directed to dispose of such an application within three months from its receipt.
After the Government's decision, the Calcutta Port Trust is to take further steps in the matter within one month from the decision.
There is an interim order of status quo with respect to the petitioners' services for a fortnight from the date of the judgment; if an application under Section 10(1) is made as permitted, the status quo continues until two weeks after the appropriate Government's decision is conveyed to the petitioners; if no application is made within the stipulated fortnight, the status quo order stands vacated.
If the appropriate Government fails to dispose of the Section 10(1) application within three months, the Calcutta Port Trust shall, consistent with the Catering Cleaners precedent, absorb the writ petitioners in its regular establishment under the Haldia Dock Complex within three months thereafter.
There is no order as to costs.
The Court also provided for expeditious supply of an urgent certified xerox copy of the judgment if applied for in proper formality-compliant manner.

Implications:

The judgment clarifies and applies the prevailing jurisprudence: the Court concluded that the right to absorption of contract workmen arises consequential to abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and such right is enforceable in writ jurisdiction. However, where no such notification has been published, as in this case, immediate absorption cannot be directed; instead, the Court provided a short, structured procedural route (leave to apply under Section 10(1) with specified timelines) and contingent remedial measures should the Government delay or fail to act within the prescribed period. The order therefore leaves factual determination and administrative action to the appropriate Government and the principal employer, while ensuring judicially supervised timelines and interim protection for the petitioners.

Note: This summary is restricted to and strictly based upon the information available in the provided opinion text. No additional facts or inferences beyond that text have been introduced.

Show all summary ...

Cases referred: Paras 1. 1997 (1) L.L.N 75 10, 14 and 25 2. 1995 (2) L.L.N 634 8 and 22 3. 1994 (2) L.L.N 378 9 and 16 4. 1994 (2) L.L.N 378 16 5. 1992 (1) L.L.N 53 10, 15, 22, 24 and 25 6. 1987 (1) L.L.N 480 7, 22 and 31

For Petitioners.— Sri Bikash Ranjan Bhattachaiya and Smt. Santi Das.

For Calcutta Port Trust.— Sri Pradip Ghosh and Sri Debashis Das.

For Respondent 6.— Dr. Tapas Banerjee, Sri Arijit Banerjee, Sri S.K Roychowdhury and Sri S.N Patra Bhatta.

JUDGMENT

1. The writ-petitioners claim to have been appointed by respondent 6, Chanda Vulcaniser (Private), Ltd., over different periods of time, as vulcanisers for maintenance and repair of conveyor belts at the coal berth of the Haldia Dock Complex, Calcutta Port Trust. According the petitioners, they have been performing such duties, for about the last 12 to 15 years without break.

2. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Sri Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya firstly urged that the duties being performed by the petitioners were of a continuous and perennial nature which entailed employment of regular employees, but to avoid employing the petitioners on a regular basis, the Calcutta Port Trust employed the petitioners through respondent 6.

3. Sri Bhattacharya submitted that, in fact, having regard to the nature of the work which the petitioners were required to perform, they had to work in three shifts, which clearly indicated that the said work was of a continuous and perennial nature and without the work being performed by the petitioners the work in the port would come to a standstill. Sri Bhattacharya submitted that although the writ-petitioners were engaged to perform their duties through a contractor, the Calcutta Port Trust is their principal employer and though they have been working continuously they have been deprived of the benefit of a regular scale of pay and other service benefits which were being given to other regular employees of the establishment.

4. Sri Bhattacharya urged that because of the long and continuous service rendered by the petitioners and in view of the various judicial pronouncements in this regard, the petitioners had acquired a semblance of a right to have their services regularised.

5. Sri Bhattacharya submitted that pursuant to a bipartite settlement the Calcutta Port Trust had absorbed in the regular establishment some other employees, who had also been employed by a contractor C.B Constructions in the Haldia Dock Complex for maintenance of the gardens and conservancy work. Sri Bhattacharya submitted that being similarly placed the petitioners had also made several representations to the respondents for regularisation of their services, but the same had not been favourably considered by the respondents.

6. Sri Bhattacharya urged that the double standards being sought to be adopted in respect of those whose services had been regularized and the petitioners amounted to violation of Arts. 14 and 16 and even Art. 21 of the Constitution.

7. In support of his submissions, Sri Bhattacharya firstly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India [1987 (1) L.L.N 480], wherein the practice of employing labour through contractors for performing work of permanent nature was deprecated and was referred to as an archaic system. Inasmuch as, the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars was held to be necessary and incidental to the industry or business of the Southern Railway, which satisfied the requirements of the provisions of S. 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and it was also felt that sufficient number of whole-time workmen were required to do such work, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the appropriate Government to consult the Central Board or the State Board, as the case might be, for arriving at a decision to abolish the contract labour system under which the cleaners in the catering establishments and pantry cars were employed in the Southern Railway and to regualrise their services. The administration of the Southern Railways was restrained from employing contract labour until the decision of the Central Government under S. 10. A further direction was given to the effect that the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars would have to be done departmentally by employing these workmen, who were previously employed by the contractor, on the same wages and conditions of work as were applicable to those engaged in similar work by the Western Railway. It was also stipulated that if the Central Government did not finally decide the question within six months from the date of the order, the Southern Railway Administration would within three months thereafter absorb the workmen into their service and regularise their services.

8. Sri Bhattacharya then referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India [1995 (2) L.L.N 634], which dealt with the absorption of railway parcel porters working on contract labour. In the said case, which was a writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, a report was asked for from the Labour Commissioner and from the report it appeared that the writ-petitioners had been working as contract labour railway parcel porters continuously for a number of years and that the work of parcel handling is permanent and perennial nature and it could keep all the petitioners continuously engaged. It was also established that in certain Railway stations the parcel handling work was done by railway parcel porters regularly and permanently employed by the Railways and that contract labour for parcel handling was done by labour supplied to Railways through societies or private contractors.

9. Referring to the report of the Labour Commissioner and one of its earlier decisions in the case of R.K Panda v. Steel Authority of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 378], wherein directions had been given for absorption of the labourers who had initially been engaged through contractors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances, inter alia, directed that the unit of the Railway Administration having control over the Railway stations where the petitioners were engaged in the work of railways parcel porters on contract labour, were to be absorbed permanently as regular railway parcel porters of those stations, the number to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of the work which might become available to them on a perennial basis. Certain other consequential directions were also given.

10. Sri Bhattacharya lastly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union reported in 1997 (1) L.L.N 75], wherein amongst various other questions the question of abolition of contract labour and absorption of workmen in the regular establishment came up for consideration. On a consideration of the various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it was observed that the abolition of the contract labour system ensures a right to the workmen for their regularisation as employees in the establishments in which they were hitherto working as contract labour through the contractor and that, in fact, a direct relationship of employer and employee was created between the principal employer and the workmen. It was observed further that while the Act did not provide for total abolition of the contract labour system, it regulated the contract labour system to prevent exploitation of the contract labour. While taking such a view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to one of its earlier decisions in the case of Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers, Ltd. [1992 (1) L.L.N 53], wherein a contrary view had been taken and it was held that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution had no power to direct absorption of the contract labour as direct employees. Disagreeing with the said view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench had taken too narrow a view on technical considerations without considering the object which the Act sought to achieve. It was particularly observed that the operation of the Act is structured on an inbuilt procedure leaving no escape route and that abolition of the contract labour system ensures right to the workmen for their regularisation in the establishment in which they were hitherto working as contract labour through the contractor.

11. Sri Bhattacharya urged that haying regard to the above and the clear exposition of the law relating to absorption of labour employed by contractors, a similar direction should issue to the respondents in this case also to absorb the petitioners in the regular establishment of the Haldia Dock Complex, Calcutta Port Trust.

12. Appearing for the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities. Dr. Tapas Banerjee firstly submitted that the work performed by the petitioners were neither continuous nor perennial in nature and that the petitioners actually worked for about 14/15 days in a month. It was contended that the services of the petitioners were required only when the conveyor belts snapped or were damaged in the course of operation and no routine maintenance was normally required to be undertaken.

13. Dr. Banerjee also urged that a mechanism had been created under S. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, for identifying contract labour in a particular establishment and for its subsequent abolition, but in the present case no notification under S. 10 of the said Act had been issued in respect of vulcanising jobs undertaken by contractors in the Calcutta Port Trust.

14. It was also urged that the decision in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation [1997 (1) L.L.N 75] (vide supra), did not apply to the facts of this case in the absence of a notification under S. 10(1) of the above Act. It was submitted that while on 5 June 1991, the Central Government had issued a notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour in certain areas of the Calcutta Port Trust, vulcanisation work had not been included in the said notification as such work did not require regular preventive maintenance as well as provisional overhauling and repairing, but was confined to repair work as and when required on account of snapping of conveyors belts or damage caused thereto during operation.

15. Reliance was placed on Dena Nath case [1992 (1) L.L.N 53] (vide supra), wherein it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on issuance of notification under S. 10(1) of the above Act the contract labour employed did not become direct employees of the principal employer and that the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution could not issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer.

16. Reference was also made to two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of—

(1) R.K Panda v. Steel Authority of India [1994 (2) L.LN 378] (vide supra); and

(2) Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha v. Union of India [1994 (2) L.L.N 378].

Where it was, inter alia, observed that a claim for regularisation on the ground of long service involved questions of fact which could normally be determined by the Tribunal on evidence and not by the High Court or Supreme Court under writ jurisdiction or even under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

17. It was urged that, in any event, in the absence of a notification under S. 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the writ-petitioners claim for regularisation was misconceived and could not be entertained.

18. Appearing for the contractor, Sri Debashis Das submitted that the nature of the work involved could give rise only to intermittent and not perennial employment. Moreover, the contract entered into between the Calcutta Port Trust and respondent 6 expired in the month of November 1995 and had not been renewed.

19. While adopting the other arguments advanced on behalf of the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities, Sri Das also submitted that since respondent 6 had trained the writ-petitioners over, the years to perform the duties of vulcaniser, they could not be made direct employees under the Calcutta Port Trust as their principal employer continued to be respondent 6 and not the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities.

20. It was urged that the writ application was wholly misconceived and was liable to be dismissed with costs.

21. The issue involved in this application has been under the consideration of the Courts ever since the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act was enacted in 1970. Different views were expressed at different points of time regarding abolition of the practice of employing labour through contractors and the absorption of such labour in the regular establishment when the jobs they were required to perform were of a continuous and perennial nature.

22. The two cases cited by Sri Bhattacharya, involving the Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway [1987 (1) L.L.N 480], and Railway Parcel Porters [1995 (2) L.L.N 634] (vide supra), indicate the view of the Hon ble Supreme Court on this issue before its decision in Dena Nath case [1992 (1) L.L.N 53] (vide supra) in 1991.

23. In the first of the said two cases, while directing the appropriate Government to take a decision to abolish the contract labour system and to regularize the services of the contract labour within six months, a further direction was given to absorb the workmen in the regular establishment, if no decision was taken within the stipulated period of six months. In the latter case, directions were given to the Union of India to permanently absorb some of the workmen as per the quantum of work available on the basis of a report filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner pursuant to the orders of the Court.

24. A slightly different note was struck by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dena Nath case [1992 (1) L.L.N 53] (vide supra), and it was held that on abolition of contract labour altogether there was no provision that such labour should be directly absorbed by the principal employer.

25. Although, the respondents relied on the said view expressed in Dena Nath case (vide supra), the said decision does not help the respondents as the same was overruled in the Air India Statutory Corporation case [1997 (1) L.L.N 75] (vide supra), wherein it was held that abolition of the contract labour system ensures a right to the workmen for regularisation as employees in the establishments where they had been working as contract labour through the contractor.

26. In the said case it was also observed that in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court could come to a finding whether the workmen were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or were continued as contract labour, despite prohibition of the contract labour under S. 10(1) thereof. It was observed further that, although, there is no express provision in the Act for absorption of the employees whose contract labour system stood abolished by publication of the notification under S. 10(1) of the Act, in a proper case, the Court is required to direct and appropriate authority to act in accordance with law and submit a report to the Court and proper relief should be granted on the basis thereof.

27. Considering the provisions of S. 10 of the above Act and the various decisions cited on behalf of the parties, the ratio which emerges is that consequent upon abolition of contract labour in a particular establishment by publication of a notification under S. 10(1) of the said Act, the workman concerned acquired a right to be absorbed in the regular establishment, and such right could be enforced in the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.

28. In the present case, no such notification has been published as far as “vulcanisers” employed as contract labour under the Calcutta Port Trust are concerned and until such a notification is published, the petitioners, in my view, cannot straightaway claim absorption in the regular establishment.

29. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this application with leave to the writ petitioners to make an application to the appropriate Government within a fortnight from date under S. 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, for prohibition by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of the petitioners as contract labour in the Haldia Dock Complex, Calcutta Port Trust, and if such an application is made, the same is to be disposed of by the appropriate Government within three months from the date of such application being made. The Calcutta Port Trust shall, thereafter, take further steps in the matter on the decision that may be arrived at by the appropriate Government, within a month thereafter.

30. There will be an order of status quo as regards the petitioners' services for a fortnight from date, and if an application is made under S. 10(1) of the above Act pursuant to the leave granted, the said order of status quo will continue till two weeks after the decision of the appropriate Government is conveyed to the writ-petitioners. If no such application is made within the time stipulated, the order of status quo will stand vacated.

31. If the application is not disposed of within three months from the date of such application being made, the Calcutta Port Trust shall in keeping with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catering Cleaner case [1987 (1) L.L.N 480] (vide supra), absorb the writ-petitioners in its regular establishment under the Haldia Dock Complex within three months thereafter.

32. There will be no order as to costs.

33. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicant expeditiously, subject to compliance with all the required formalities.