1. The petitioners who are employees have questioned a notice inviting tender which is contained in Annexure G to the writ application, inter alia, stating that they have been working for a long time.
2. Sri Hirak Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn my attention to a plan showing the areas of work by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed, and in the event the tender is accepted, they will be thrown out of job. Sri Mitra, when questioned, submitted that the earlier contractor was not registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
3. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the petitioners are workmen of the erstwhile contractor or the Airport Authority of India, is essentially a question of fact. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in 1994 (2) L.L.N 378. Moreover, in view of the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Page: 192Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. v. United Contractor [(1995) 100 C.W.N 171], no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
4. Sri Mitra has relied upon a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Satyajit Majumdar v. Union of India [1995 (8) S.L.R 158]. Unfortunately, in the aforementioned decision, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers, Ltd. [1992 (1) L.L.N 53], R.K Panda v. Steel Authority of India, Ltd. [1994 (2) L.L.N 378] (vide supra), and other decisions, which have been taken into consideration in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha [1995 (2) L.L.N 59], had not been taken into consideration. If the petitioners are workmen of the International Airport Authority of India, their remedy is to raise an industrial dispute in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Hussainbhai case [1978 (2) L.L.N 276], and in that view of the matter, the writ petition would not be maintainable as the same would depend on a conclusion on a pure question of fact.
5. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy.
6. Liberty is given to take gist of the order.