Jharkhand High Court
H.E.C Supply Mazdoor Sangharash ... vs The Union Of India on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:27930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4979 of 2025
------
H.E.C Supply Mazdoor Sangharash Samittee through its President
namely Dilip Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Swarup Singh, resident of
Quarter No. B/2/1 HEC Colony, Sector-I, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, office
at Room No. 155, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O and P.S. and District-
New Delhi- 110011.
3. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), office at Shramev Jayate
Bhawan, G-4, Sector-10, P.O and P.S and District Dwarka, Delhi- 110075.
4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HEC Ltd. (A Govt. of India
Enterprises), Plant Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
5. The Assistant Manager (P&A), HEC Ltd. (A Govt of India Enterprises),
Plant Plaza Road, P.O. And P.S. Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi
6. The General Secretary, Hatia Project Workmen Union, A-II/129, Dhurwa,
P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
7. The General Secretary, Hatia Kamgar Union, (ATAK) CD-542/3, Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
8. The General Secretary, HEC Ltd., Shramik Karamchari Union, B-3/437(T),
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
9. The President, Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU), B-44, Sector-II, Dhurwa,
Ranchi. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.
For the UOI Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate.
------
04/10.09.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a Labour Union, has
prayed for a direction to regularize the labourers who are employed for 240
days per year and is working for a long period i.e. 10 to 20 years in a job,
which is perineal and permanent in nature. It is also prayed that an enquiry
be set up regarding the employment of more than 1600 contract labourers in
Heavy Engineering Corporation (H.E.C) who are working under a sham
paper contracts, which is fraud as per the Constitution and the Contract
labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. A
prayer has also been made to blacklist or derecognize all the registered
labour union such as respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in HEC.
2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner
claims themselves to be a Labour Union. It is their case that there are 1600
contract labourers employed in H.E.C Ltd and they are working in perineal
and essential nature of job for a very long period, thus, it is necessary to
regularize them. Further, it is their case that the contract is a sham document
and thus the regularization should be made.
3. There cannot be an automatic regularization of contract labour.
Further before regularization of the contract laborers, it is to be seen what is
the nature of job, which the contract labourers are performing, whether they
fall within the prohibited category under the Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970. It is also to be seen whether the contract between the
employer and the contractors is sham or genuine.
4. The issue of regularization of the contract labourers has been
dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of
India Limited and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.,
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. In paragraph 125 of the aforesaid judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
" 125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined
thus:
(1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the
question whether the Central Government or the State
Government is the appropriate Government in relation to
an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of
the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the
CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the
industry under consideration carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to
any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of
any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or
oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance
company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central
Government will be the appropriate Government;
otherwise in relation to any other establishment the
Government of the State in which the establishment was
situated, would be the appropriate Government;
(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of
that expression, the answer to the question referred to
above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the
Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government
company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking
concerned is included therein eonomine, or (ii) any
industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the
Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c)
by a specified controlled industry, then the Central
Government will be the appropriate Government;
otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the
Government of the State in which that other
establishment is situated, will be the appropriate
Government.
(2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act
prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment has to be
issued by the appropriate Government:
(1) after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or
the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and
(2) having regard to
(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the
contract labour in the establishment in question, and
(ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in
sub-section (2) of Section 10;
(b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the
Central Government on 9-12-1976 does not satisfy the
aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but
we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment
and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this
judgment no order passed or no action taken giving
effect to the said notification on or before the date of this
judgment, shall be called in question in any tribunal or
court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained
finality and/or it has been implemented.
(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other
provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary
implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract
labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate
Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10,
prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment.
Consequently the principal employer cannot be required
to order absorption of the contract labour working in the
establishment concerned.
(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India
case [(1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344]
prospectively and declare that any direction issued by
any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High
Court, for absorption of contract labour following the
judgment in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997
SCC (L&S) 1344] shall hold good and that the same shall
not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this
judgment in cases where such a direction has been given
effect to and it has become final.
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought
before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of
service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider
the question whether the contractor has been interposed
either on the ground of having undertaken to produce
any given result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment under a
genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to
deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the
contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be
treated as employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularise the services of the contract
labour in the establishment concerned subject to the
conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in
the light of para 6 hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in
respect of the establishment concerned has been issued
by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment
of contract labour in any process, operation or other
work of any establishment and where in such process,
operation or other work of the establishment the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall
give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if
otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing
the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking
into consideration the age of the workers at the time of
their initial employment by the contractor and also
relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other
than technical qualifications."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that there cannot be
automatic regularization and has dealt with the facts and essentials which
are to be seen before regularization of the contract labourers.
6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the
Industrial Adjudicator who has to adjudicate all the issues, as the issues are
factual in nature, which involves disputed question of facts and complicated
question of facts also. It is necessary to quote para 126 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:-
"126. We have used the expression "industrial
adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions
aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions
of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High
Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate
authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial
Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to
judicial review."
7. In view of what has been held by the Honb'le Supreme Court,
this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not
maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner, if so advise, may approach the
Industrial Adjudicator for redressal of their grievances, as per law.
Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
10th September, 2025
