M/S. Swastik Mining And ... vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2285 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI


               W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022

   M/s. Swastik Mining and Engineering Company, a partnership fir,
   through one of its partners, namely, Raj Kishor Bauri, Aged about
   51 years, son of Sri Gurupada Bauri, resident of Moti Nagar, P.O.
   & P.S. Chas Nala, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                            ...     ...     Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The Union of India, through Deputy Labour Commissioner
   (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
   District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. Licensing and Registering Officer, under Contract Labour
   (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour
   Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III, having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
3. Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Dhanbad- II & I/C Jharia,
   having its Office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:
   Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
                                 ...       ... Respondents
                          With
                W.P.(L) No.5209 of 2022

   M/s. Coal Mining Development and Company, a Partnership firm,
   through one of its partners, namely, Brajesh Kumar, aged about 45
   years, son of Sri Sudarshan Pandey, resident of Village Chasnalla,
   P.O. & P.S. Chasnalla, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                             ...    ...      Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The Union of India, through Deputy labour Commissioner
   (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. &P.S. Dhanbad,
   District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. Licensing and Registering Officer, Under Contract Labour
   (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour
   Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III. Having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
3. Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Dhanbad- II & I/C Jharia,
   having its Office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:
   Dhanbad(Jharkhand)                 ...        ... Respondents
                          With
                W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022

   Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), having its registered
   office at Ispat Bhawan, P.O. Lodi Road, P.S. Lodi Road, District:
   New Delhi and having one of its Unit known as Bokaro Steel
   Plant, Bokaro (Colliery Division) through its Agent (Mining),
   Chasnalla, Sanjay Kumar, aged about 49 years, son of Shri
   Lakshmi Prasad, resident of MIG -A/15, Housing Colony,
   Bartand, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                            ...    ...     Petitioner
                         Versus
                            2

1. The Union of India, through Deputy Labour Commissioner
   (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
   District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad- III, having its
   office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:Dhanbad
   (Jharkhand)
3. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad- II & I/C Jharia,
   having its Office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:
   Dhanbad(Jharkhand)                ...       ... Respondents
                          with
                W.P.(L) No.3399 of 2023

   M/s. Swastik Mining and Engineering Company, a partnership
   firm, through one of its partners, namely, Raj Kishor Bauri, Aged
   about 51 years, son of Sri Gurupada Bauri, resident of Moti Nagar,
   P.O. & P.S. Chas Nala, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                            ...      ...     Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The Union of India, through Deputy Labour Commissioner
   (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. &P.S. Dhanbad,
   District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. Licensing and Registering Officer, Under Contract Labour
   (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour
   Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III, having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
3. Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Dhanbad- II & I/C Jharia,
   having its Office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:
   Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
4. Assistant Labour Commissioner- III, Dhanbad, having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                       ...       ... Respondents
                         With
               W.P.(L) No. 3400 of 2023

   M/s. Coal Mining Development and Company, a Partnership firm,
   through one of its partners, namely, Brajesh Kumar, aged about 45
   years, son of Sri Sudarshan Pandey, resident of Village Chasnalla,
   P.O. & P.S. Chasnalla, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                             ...    ...      Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The Union of India, through Deputy Labour Commissioner
   (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
   District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. Licensing and Registering Officer, under Contract Labour
   (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour
   Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III, having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad- II & I/C Jharia,
   having its Office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District:
   Dhanbad(Jharkhand)
4. Assistant Labour Commissioner-III, Dhanbad, having its office at
   Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District (Jharkhand)
                                      ...        ... Respondents
                                              3



                                       With
                           W.P.(L) No. 3539 of 2023
                 Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), having its registered
                 office at Ispat Bhawan, P.O. Lodi Road, P.S. Lodi Road, District
                 New Delhi and having one of its unit known as Bokaro Steel
                 Plant, Bokaro (Colliery Division), having office at Chasnalla, PO
                 Chasnalla, P.S Patherdih, District Dhanbad, through its Chief
                 General Manager (Law), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, namely,
                 Rajesh Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Mr B.B. Sinha,
                 resident of sector 4D, 6068, P.O. & P.S : Bokaro, District Bokaro
                 (Jharkhand)           ..          ..                 Petitioner

                                      -Versus

           1. The Union of India, through Deputy Labour Commissioner
              (Central), having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
              District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
           2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III, having its
              office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
              (Jharkhand).
           3. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad-II & I/c Jharia,
              having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District
              Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
           4. M/s. Swastik Mining and Engineering Company, a partnership
              firm, through one of its partners, namely, Raj Kishor Bauri, son of
              name not known to the petitioner, resident of Moti Nagar, P.O. &
              P.S. Chas Nala, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
           5. M/s. Coal Mining Development and Company, a Partnership firm,
              through one of its partners, namely, Brajesh Kumar, son of name
              not known to the petitioner, resident of Village Chasnalla, P.O. &
              P.S. Chasnalla, District: Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
                                     ...     ...                  Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.

                                       : Mr. Ajay Sah, Advocate
                                       : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
           For the Respondent          : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI
                                       : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, CGC
                                       : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, CGC
                                      ---
04/13.07.2023          The learned counsel for the parties are present.

I.A No.11351 of 2022 in W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022, I.A No.11352 of 2022 in W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022, I.A No.11353 of 2022 in W.P.(L) No.5209 of 2022

2. Interlocutory applications have been filed in the aforesaid cases by one Abhishek Kumar, claiming to be the General Secretary of Janta Shramik Sangh. The learned counsel for the intervenor has

submitted that the intervention applications have been filed as the intervenor is primarily interested in ensuring that the work is ultimately executed through members of the labour Union only.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the intervention applications and has submitted that the grievance of the intervenor has nothing to do with the issue involved in the present cases as the matter essentially relates to grant of license/revocation of license issued under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the intervenor and the petitioners in light of the scope of the present writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the licenses are to be given in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1970 and at this stage, the labour Union has no role to play. However, if the labour Union has any grievance in connection with the working of the contractor / Steel Authority of India Limited, they have their own remedies under the provisions of labour laws and this Court is not inclined to allow the intervention applications.

5. Accordingly, all these interlocutory applications are disposed of.

6. These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:

W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the order, as contained in the letter under Ref.

No.CLRA/ALCDHANBAD3/2022/L-20 dated 12/13.10.2022 issued under the seal and signature of the Licensing and Registering Officer, under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder, Labour Licence No.CLRA/ALCDHANBAD3/ 2022/L-20 dated 21.7.2022 for executing the "Job contract for stabilization of 16 seam at upper seam project at Chasnala Colliery, SAIL-Collieries Division for Upper Seam Chasnala, Chasnala, Dhanbad" has been revoked under the provisions of Section 14(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act, 1970‟); and

(ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P.(L) No.5209 of 2022

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the order, as contained in the letter under Ref.

No.CLRA/ALCDHANBAD3/2022/L-21 dated 12/13.10.2022 issued under the seal and signature of the Licensing and Registering Officer, under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder, Labour Licence No.CLRA/ALCDHANBAD3/ 2022/L-21 dated 21.7.2022 for executing the "Job contract for stabilization of 16 seam at upper seam project at Chasnala Colliery, SAIL-Collieries Division for Upper Seam Chasnala, Chasnala, Dhanbad" has been revoked under the provisions of Section 14(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act, 1970‟); and

(ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 02/05.09.2022 (Annexure -6) under seal signature of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-III, wherein petitioner was show caused as to why the certificate of the registration granted should not be revoked under Section 8 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for Misrepresentation and Suppression of material facts.

(ii) For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 02/05.09.2022 (Annexure -6) under seal and signature of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad-II & I/c Jharia, wherein petitioner was show caused as to why legal action should not be taken against under Section 23 and / or 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for irregularities mentioned in the Inspection Report, which report refers to violation of prohibitory provisions of SO No. 2063 dated 21.06.1988 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. And / Or

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as maybe deemed fit and proper and for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

W.P.(L) No.3399 of 2023

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated

27.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-III, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the application for renewal of licence filed on behalf of the petitioner under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act, 1970‟) has been rejected;

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent licensing authority to renew the licence of the petitioner in terms of the Act, 1970); and

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P.(L) No. 3400 of 2023

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-III, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the application for renewal of licence filed on behalf of the petitioner under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act, 1970‟) has been rejected;

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent - licensing authority to renew the licence of the petitioner in terms of the Act, 1970); and

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

W.P.(L) No. 3539 of 2023

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and renew the applications filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 for renewal of the license being License No.- CLRA/ ALCDHANBAD3/2022/L-20 and License No.CLRA/ALCDHANBAD3/2022/L-21, issued under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as „the Act, 1970‟);

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to allow the respondent nos.4 and 5 to continue with the work in respect to "Stabilization of 16 Seam at Upper Seam Project at Chasnalla Colliery and Stabilization of 16 Bottom Seam at Upper Seam Project at Chasnalla Colliery.

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up on merit.

W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022, W.P.(L) No.5209 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022 Arguments of the Petitioners

8. The date of show cause notice and the final order of cancellation of Licence under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 with respect to each petitioners are as under:-

Case number             Date of show Final order details
                        cause notice
W.P.(L)       No.5212 02.09.2022         Ref.   No.CLRA/ALCDHAN
of 2022                                  BAD3/2022/L-20          dated
                                         12/13.10.2022
W.P.(L)       No.5209 08.08.2022         Ref.   No.CLRA/ALCDHAN
of 2022                                  BAD3/2022/L-21 dated
                                         12/13.10.2022

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that aforesaid show cause notices were issued to the petitioner of each case by alleging supersession of fact / misrepresentation while obtaining the license under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [herein after referred to as the Act of 1970]. He submits that the only allegation was that as per the scope of work, the work was coming under prohibited category under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act of 1970, but in forms regarding engagement of contract labour while making the application for licence, the work in the prohibited category was not mentioned and the petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the license be not revoked under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act of 1970 on account of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.

10. He submits that in response to the show cause, detailed reply was filed as annexed in the writ petition and ultimately, a final order has been passed as contained in Annexure - 10 in both the writ petitions.

11. The learned counsel submits that the solitary reason for cancellation of license in both the cases is that the petitioners have engaged contract workers for doing work under prohibited category notification for which has been issued under Section 10 of the

aforesaid Act of 1970 vide notification So No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 which was issued in supersession of the earlier notification no.498 dated 01.02.1975. The learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid notifications of 1988 and 1975 have been set aside by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5550 of 1999 vide judgment dated 19.12.2002 read with order dated 10.01.2003. The learned counsel submits that the said notification was set aside on account of non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in sub- Section 2 of Section 10. He has also submitted that the liberty was reserved with the respondents to issue necessary notification under Section 10 after following the procedure and mandate contained in Section 10 (2), but the same was not followed up by fresh notification and consequently as on date, the notification dated 21.06.1988 and 01.02.1975 do not exist anymore. The learned counsel submits that under aforesaid circumstances, the whole basis of passing the impugned orders of cancellation of license in both the cases does not exist as the two notifications have already been quashed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and not followed by any other notification. He submits that the impugned orders are perverse and fit to be quashed on this ground alone.

W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar notice with same allegations was given to the petitioner as that of W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022 and W.P.(L). No.5212 of 2022, show cause reply has been filed, but no final order has been passed and the show cause notice is under challenge having been issued on nonest ground as the same is also based on So No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 which was issued in supersession of the earlier notification no.498 dated 01.02.1975. He submits that no final order has been passed on account of interim relief granted by this Court.

13. He submits that identical issues are involved in all the cases. Counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022 and aforesaid aspects of the matter are not in dispute. He submits that similar issues are involved therefore common order can be passed. Arguments of the Respondents

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, Mr. Anil Kumar, Additional Solicitor General of India, has submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed in W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022 and as similar issues are involved in all the three writ petitions, the counter-affidavit filed therein can be taken into consideration.

15. During the course of hearing, he has submitted that he has also taken instructions and it is not in dispute that the notification being SO No.2063 dated 21.6.1988 as well as the notification no.SO 498 dated 1.2.1975 have been quashed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and thereafter no fresh notification has been issued and therefore any such notification has not been annexed along with the counter- affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, appropriate order can be passed. So far as W.P.(L) No.5001 of 2022 is concerned, the writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice itself, but the show cause in the said case, is also based on alleged violation of SO No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 and SO No.498 dated 01.2.1975. Findings of this Court

16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the aforesaid notification SO No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 as well as the notification no.SO 498 dated 01.02.1975 issued under section 10(1) of the aforesaid Act of 1970 have been quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ petition No.5550 of 1999 (GS Atwal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India) decided on 19.12.2002 read with the order dated 10.01.2003. The judgement and the order have been annexed with the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had left it open to the respondents to issue fresh notification in terms of section 10 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1970 after due compliance of the provision of section 10 (2), but no fresh notification be issued. The factual position stands that as on date, there is no notification under section 10 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1970 corresponding to the earlier notifications So No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 which was issued in supersession of the earlier notification no.498 dated

01.02.1975 and accordingly, there is no material on record that the activities, which were being undertaken by the petitioners were covered under prohibited category under any notification issued under section 10 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1970.

17. The records of the cases also show that the impugned orders in W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022 and impugned notice in W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022 have been passed/issued solely on account of the allegation that the licenses were obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of fact that the work carried on by the petitioners were falling under prohibited category by virtue of notification So No.2063 dated 21.06.1988 which was issued in supersession of the earlier notification no.498 dated 01.02.1975, which have already been quashed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and not followed by any fresh notification.

18. The aforesaid reason being the sole reason for revocation of license, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders revoking the license of the petitioners in W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022 as well as the show cause issued in W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the very basis of the same does not exist. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 in W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022; impugned order dated 12/13.10.2022 in W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022 and impugned notice dated 02/05.09.2022 in W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022, are hereby set aside.

W.P.(L). No.3399 of 2023 and W.P.(L) No.3400 of 2023

19. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has enquired from the respondents and the order of rejection which is contained in Annexure - 12 of each case is the complete order as the order of rejection is required to be communicated through the portal and the communication through portal has been annexed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other order rejecting the application for renewal of license in these two cases.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the solitary ground for rejection of renewal of license of the

petitioners is that the labour licenses were earlier revoked against which writ petitions have been filed before this Court and the matter is subjudice, and hence the renewal cannot be approved. The order of rejection in W.P.(L). No.3399 of 2023 is quoted as under:-

"ALC- III Dhanbad order dated 13/10/2022 labour licence issued to swastika mining and engineering were revoked. Against the revocation order you have filed W.P. No.5212 of 2022 before the Hon‟ble H.C. of Ranchi. Since matter is sub judice before the hon‟ble H.C. of Ranchi hence renewal application can not be approved. Clrify the present status on above matter."

The order of rejection in W.P.(L). No.3400 of 2023 is quoted as under:-

"ALC- III Dhanbad order dated 13/10/2022 labour licence issued to swastika mining and engineering were revoked. Against the revocation order you have filed W.P. No.5209 of 2022 before the Hon‟ble H.C. of Ranchi. Since matter is sub judice before the hon‟ble H.C. of Ranchi hence renewal application can not be approved. Clarify the present status on above matter."

21. The learned counsel submits that since the two writ petitions being W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022 and W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022 have been disposed of by quashing the orders of revocation of licence, therefore the impugned communications rejecting the renewal of license be also set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent no.4 for fresh consideration of the application for renewal of license subject to satisfaction of other conditions.

22. The learned counsel for the respondents also does not dispute that once the order revoking the licenses have been set aside, therefore, the solitary basis for refusal to renewal of licenses does not exist anymore and the matter has to be considered afresh in accordance with law.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2023 in both the cases, by which the respondent no.4 has rejected the application for renewal of license

filed on behalf of the petitioners under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, only on the ground of pendency of the writ petition filed by them, are hereby set aside.

24. The matter is remitted back to the aforesaid authority for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law considering the various conditions which are required to be satisfied by the petitioners for renewal of license. The fresh decision be taken within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners to appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Respondent no.4) on 17.07.2023. Upon their appearance, fresh orders be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representatives and the orders be immediately communicated to the petitioners. W.P.(L). No.3539 of 2023

25. In view of the aforesaid orders passed in the writ petitions being W.P.(L). No.5209 of 2022; W.P.(L) No.5212 of 2022; W.P.(L). No.5001 of 2022; W.P.(L). No.3399 of 2023 and W.P.(L) No.3400 of 2023, the petitioner has no surviving grievance; therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this case.

26. All the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/