M/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD.versusPARADEEP PHOSPHATE MAZDOOR UNION & ORS.

                          {2014] 8 S.C.R. 582

A             M/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD.
                               v.
        PARADEEP PHOSPHATE MAZDOOR UNION & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2014)
                            AUGUST 26, 2014
B
             [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                      S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

        Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - s.
C 10(1) - Writ petition seeking regulaisation of employees - On basis
  of the Notification issued by the State Government for abolition of
  contract labour in respect of the workers in OAP Plant-Cleaning of
  granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber -
  Meanwhile, State Advisory Contract Labour Board had
o recommended prohibiting contract labour system in 16 areas of
  the Company - In another writ application, wherein parties were
  common, the Company directed to reconsider the recommendation
  of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to abolition
  of Contract Labour in respect of 15 other areas left out by it and to
E take appropriate decision, however, no action taken - Plea by the
  company that the State Government is not an appropriate
  government/or the purpose of the Act and the notification was not
  binding upon the Company - In the writ petition, High Court directed
  the Company to implement the notification abolishing the contract
  labour and to regularize the service of the workmen - In review, order
F modified to the extent that only those workers engaged in the
  cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion
  chamber, to be regularized - On appeal, held: Since the decisions
  in the writ petitions have reached finality, such question cannot be
  re-agitated in another writ petition between same parties as the
G question.will be hit by the principles of res judicata - Once the
  Notification for abolition of contract labour in respect of the workers
  in OAP Plant-Cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in
  combustion chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on the part
  of the Company to implement the same - Since it was not
H                                    582
 PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD. v. PARADEEP PHOSPHATE 583
                MAZDOOR UNION

implemented, the High Court rightly directed to implement the        A
same - Order passed by the High Court not called for interference.
     The State Government issued Notification dated
28.04.2000 for abolition of the Contract Labour in respect of
workers engaged in OAP Plant-cleaning of Granulation, dry
section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. Meanwhile, the , B
State Advisory Contract Labour Board in its meeting in the
year 1999 had recommended prohibiting contract labour
system in 16 areas of the Company. The respondents-
Mazdoor Union filed a writ petition O.J.C. No. 7464/2000
seeking directions to the appellant to enforce the said c
Notificalion. It was submitted that in a writ application O.J.C.
No.2751/2000 wherein parties were common, the Company was
directed to reconsider the recommendation of the State
Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to abolition of
Contract Labour in respect of 15 other areas left out by it and D
to take appropriate decision according to law. However, no
action was taken. In writ petition O.J.C. No. 7464/2000, the
appellant contended that the State Government is not an
appropriate government for the purpose of the Act and the '
notification was not binding upon it. The High Court holding
                                                                 E
that the Central Government is not the appropriate
Government, allowed the writ petition and directed the
appellant to regularize the workers engaged in the OAP plant.
The appellant filed a review petition. The court modified the
said order to the extent that workers engaged in cleaning of
Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber, F
were directed to be regularized. Hence, the instant appeal.
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court
    HELD: 1.1. In two Writ Petitions disposed of by the High
Court, similar question regarding implementation of the              G
recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board
was considered. In these cases, the appellant-Company
neither contended nor raised the question that the State
Government is not the appropriate government. Since the
decisions in the aforesaid writ petitions have reached finality,     H
    584      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A such question cannot be re-agitated in another writ petition
  between same parties as the question will be hit by the
  principles of res judicata. [Para 9, 10, 11) [587-H; 588-A-D]
       1.2. Once the Notification dated 28th April, 2000 for
  abolition of contract labour in respect of the workers in OAP
B Plant-Cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in
  combustion chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on
  the part of the Company to implement the same. Since it was
  not implemented, the High Court rightly directed to implement
  the same. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned
C judgment and order passed by the High Court. [Para 12, 13)
  [588-E-G]
        Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. vs. National Union
    Water Front Workera and Ora. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 343: AIR 2001
    SC 3527:- referred to.
D
                            Case Law Reference:
          2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 343        Referred to        Para 7
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8151 of
    2014.
E
          From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2012 Passed by
    the High Court of Orissa at Cuttak in RVWP. No. 273 of 2012,
    arising out of OJC No. 7464 of 2000.
                                  WITH
F C.A. No. 8152 of 2014.
          V. Giri, Subramonium Prasad, Manav Vohra for the Appellant.
      M. Surender Rao, Vikas Singh, Ashok Panigrahi, Santosh
  Sumar, Ashmi Mohan, R. Sautham Krishnan, Amjid Maqbool,
G C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Sanjay K. Mishra, Shibashish Misra for the
  Respondents.
          ihe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. : 1. Dela{
H condoned. Leave granted.
 PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD. v. PARADEEP PHOSPHATE 585
 MAZDOOR UNION [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     2. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court, Cuttack by its          A
impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2012 in O.J.C. No.7464
of 2002 allowed the writ petition preferred by respondents and
directing the appellant to enforce notification dated 28th April, 2000
issued by the State Government for abolition of the Contract Labour
in respect of workers engaged in DAP Plant-cleaning of                   B
Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. The
Division Bench further directed the appellant to regularize the
workers engaged in the DAP plant.

       The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the appellant by
filing a review petition. The same was heard and disposed of vide        C
impugned order dated 20th December, 2012 by which the judgment
dated 17th September,2012 was modified to the extent that not all
the workers engaged in. DAP Plant but those who were engaged
in cleaning of Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion
chamber, were directed to be regularized. The aforesaid judgment         D
and order passed in writ petition and review petition are under
challenge in these appeals.

     3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

      A writ petition being O.J.C. No. 7464 of 2000 was filed by the     E
respondents-Paradeep Phosphates Mazdoor Union and others
(hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union") seeking enforcement
of Notification dated 28th April, 2000 issued by the State
Government abolishing contract labour in respect of workers in
OAP Plant-cleaning of Granulation, dry section, cleaning in              F
combustion chamber, etc. The respondents contended that the
workers named therein were working in the DAP plant of the
appellant- M/s Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
the "Company") for over 14 years uninterruptedly without any break
in service. They had been engaged through contractors appointed          G
for the purpose from time to time The contractors were changed
but the employees were continuing their work irrespective of
change of contractors. In the meantime, those workers completed
15 years of service in the particular establishment. It was submitted
that, the Trade Union took up the matter considering the fate of such
                                                                         H
    586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A persons and several other workers engaged in different
  establishments of the Company for prohibition of contract referring
  different establishments of the Company and for regularization of
  such employees in terms of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour
  (Regulation and Aboliti.on) Act, 1970. After much deliberation and
B in active participation of the Company, decision has been taken by
  the State Advisory Contract Labour Board in its 21st meeting dated
  3rd June, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 for prohibiting contract labour
  system in 16 areas of the Company and the same was accordingly
  recommended by the State Advisory Board.

C       4. Meanwhile, the Government of Orissa through its Labour
  and Employment Department came out with a Notification dated
  28th April, 2000 prohibiting employment of contract labour in the
  works in the Company particularly in the OAP Plant-cleaning of
  Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. It
D was submitted that on behalf of the Trade Union that once there is
  a prohibition of competent authority for engaging contract labourers
  in a particular work in the particular establishment, the only CQ,_urse
  left with the establishment is to straight away treat the persons
  concerned as the regular employees of the particular establishment
E and the relationship between contractor and the contract labourers
  ceases automatically from the said moment when there is an order
  prohibiting employment of contract labour in particular work of a
  particular establishment. Thus, it was contended that the only
  course open for the management is to regularize the employees
F of the establishment who were working under the. contractor.

       5. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that on earlier
  occasions, another writ application was filed bearing O.J.C. No.2751
  of 2000 which was disposed of on 24th June, 2003 wherein the
  parties were common. The said writ application was disposed of
G by the High Court with the following observation:

          '7. There is no dispute that the State Advisory Contract Labour
          Board recommended to the State Government to abolish
          cont~act labour system in sixteen areas of Paradeep _
          Phosphates Limited but in the Government notification dated
H
 PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD. v. PARADEEP PHOSPHATE 587
 MAZDOOR UNION [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

     28.4.2000 only one area has been mentioned. On reading of           A
     the note and order of the Minister extracted above, we are
     inclined to hold that the Government has not fully considered
     the recommendation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the
     matter needs reconsideration.
                                                                         B
     8. For the reasons aforesaid, we direct the State Government
     (opposite party no. 1) to reconsider the recommendation of the
     State Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to abolition
     of contract labour in respect of 15 other areas left out by it
     and take appropriate decision according to law within four          C
     months of receipt of this order."

     6. In spite of the aforesaid direction, no action has been taken.
Later the aforesaid writ petition being 0.J.c~ No. 7464 of 2000 was
preferred with the prayer as noticed above. In the said case, the
Company appeared and filed a counter affidavit taking plea that the      D
State Government is not appropriate government for the purpose
of the Act and the notification issued by the State Government is
not binding upon the Company and did not order for abolition of
contract labour.

     7. The High Court while observing that the Company failed to
                                                                         E
substantiate its stand that the undertaking is controlled by the
Central Government, referred to the decision of this Court in Steel
Authority of India Limited and Others vs. National Union Water
Front Workers and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3527 and held that the
Central Government is not the appropriate Government in such             F
cases. It was also noticed that this plea was not taken when the
earlier writ petition was heard.

     8. Similar pleas as were taken before the High Court have
been taken by the appellant and the contesting respondents before        G
this Court.

    9. From the record, we find that when earlier writ application
OJC No. 2751 of 2000 was disposed of by judgment dated 24th
June, 2003, the High Court directed the Company to consider the
                                                                         H
    saa        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board with
  regard to abolition of Contract Labour in respect of 15 other areas
  left out by it and to take appropriate decision according to law.though
    the Company was a party to the said writ application but no such
    plea was taken and the direction of the High Court reached finality.
B
        10. Another Writ Petition being W.P(c) No. 13791 of 2005 was
  also disposed of by the High Court on 5th July, 2012. In the said
  case similar question regarding implementation of the
  recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board was
C considered. In the said case also, the appellant-Company neither
  contended nor raised th~ question that the State Government is
  not the appropriate government. The said writ petition was disposed
  of by the High Court on 51h July, 2012.

         11. We are of the view that since the decisions in the aforesaid
D w·r\t petitions have reached finality, such question cannot be re-
  agitated in another writ petition between same parties as the
  question will be hit by the principles of res judicata.

        12. Now once the Notification dated 28th April, 2000 for
E abolition of contract labour in respect of the workers in OAP Plant
  -Cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion
  chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on the part of the
  Company to implement the same. Since it was not implemented,
  the High Court rightly directed to implement the same.

F       13. In view of the fact as noticed above, while we are not
  inclined to answer the question about the appropriate government
  in the present case, keep the same open for determination in an
  appropriate case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned
  judgment and order by which the High Court directed the appellant
G to implement the notification abolishing the contract labour and to
  regularize the service of the workmen.                                    '

         14. We find no merit in these appeals, they are accordingly
    dismissed.

H Nidhi Jain                                          Appeals dismissed.