Holding

The Supreme Court held that disputes on the identification of eligible workmen must be referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the High Court is not an "authority" for such matters, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Summary

The workmen of Rourkela Steel Plant, represented by Rourkela Shramik Sangh, sought regularisation of their services through a writ petition, invoking the Supreme Court's earlier directions that disputes on identification of eligible workmen be referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC). The CLC, acting under those directions, applied criteria based on Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund cards to determine eligibility, absorbing some workmen and rejecting others. The appellants contended that the CLC had not followed proper criteria and that the High Court, as an "authority", could entertain a writ under Article 226. The Supreme Court held that the CLC was not a statutory authority but was acting pursuant to the Court’s directions, and that factual disputes regarding eligibility must be ventilated before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether workmen may file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the High Court when the Supreme Court has directed that disputes on identification of eligible workmen be referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner or the Industrial Tribunal.
Whether the Chief Labour Commissioner acted as a statutory authority and whether his reliance solely on ESI and PF cards for determining eligibility was valid.
Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition is maintainable in view of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10

Subjects

regularisation of workmenindustrial disputeswrit petitionChief Labour Commissionereligibility criteriaIndustrial Tribunalre‑trenchmentcontract labourSection 10Article 226Article 32

Judgment

A ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH
v.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

JANUARY 29, 2003

B (V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.8. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
)"

Labour laws:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c Writ petition filed by workmen for regularisation of service-Supreme
Court held that services of certain categories of workmen in the Organisation r
be regularised subject to fulfilment of certain eligibility conditions-Dispute
in respect of identification of such workmen may be referred to Chief Labour
Commissioner (CLC)-On I.As. filed, it was clarified that for redressal of any
D dispute workmen may approach the authority in accordance with /aw-Some
of the workmen absorbed by the Organisation and cases of identification of
remaining workmen referred to CLC who ordered absorption of some more
of these workmen-Dismissal of Review application by CLC, High Court also
dismissed the Writ Petition and Writ application filed by workmen-Union-
On appeal, Held, Jn spite of clear and unambiguous directions by the Supreme
E
Court, workmen did not go to appropriate authority for resolving the dispute
but preferred the writ petition before the High Court-Hence, High Court
rightly dismissed the writ petition-Constitution of India; Articles 32 and 226.

Some workmen filed a writ petition for regularisation of their ~
F services on the ground that they had been doing similar jobs as has been ~
done by regular employees of the Plant. Supreme Court allowed the writ
petition and issued certain directions for absorption of workmen subject
to fulfilment of eligibility conditions and also directed that in case of any
dispute as to identification of such workmen the same may be referred
to the Chief Labour Commissioner. Workmen filed interlocutory
G applications for further orde~ and clarification. Disposing of I.As., the
Court directed workmen to approach any other appropriate authority ~
prescribed under law.

In the meanwhile, cases of ineligible workmen were referred to
H 704
ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH' STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA,!.] 705

the Chief Labour Commissioner who found some more workmen eligible A
for absorption. In review, the Chief Labour Commissioner ordered
absorption of some l)lore workmen. Workmen Union also filed a writ
petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, writ appeal
was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that the Chief Labour B
Commissioner did not follow proper criterion to identify eligible workmen;
that some workmen had been retrenched pending proceedings before
this Court and that since the High Court is also an authority, writ petition
could be filed before the High Court.

It was submitted for the respondents that the Chief Labour
c
Commissioner arrived at his finding after taking into consideration all
the documents placed by the workmen Union; and that since I.As. were
pending before Supreme Court, workmen Union could not file writ petition
· on the same issue before High Court.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. The appellants after pronouncement of the judgment of
this Court apprehended that a large number of workmen might be
retrenched. They sought for clarification by filing the I.As. which were
disposed of directing that in the event they are aggrieved by the order of E
the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), they may take recourse to
such proceedings as are available to them in law. The appellants were
fully aware of the fact that they were required to approach the Industrial
Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for
ventilating their grievances. (712-E-F-H; 713-A( F
2. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), while determining
the question as to counting continuo~s service of the workmen so as to
enable them to derive benefit of earlier judgment of the Supreme Court,
was not acting as a statutory authority, he was merely acting pursuant to
or in furtherance of the directions of the Court. (712-DI G
R.K Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors.. 119941 5 SCC
3041, referred to.

3. The term 'authority' used in this Court's earlier order must be
read in the context in which it was used. The appellant in terms thereof H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A could seek a reference which would mean a reference in terms of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It could also approach 'the authority in
accordance with law' which would mean authority under a statute. Th·e
High Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be an authority under a
statute. A disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in
a writ proceeding. In any event, the orders of the Chief Labour
B Commissioner also shows that other documents which were placed on
record by the workmen had also been s~rutinized and they had not been
found reliable. Hence no case has been made out for interference with
the decision of the High Court. 1713-B-C-DI

C Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water.front ·
Workers and 9rs., 120011 7 SCC lJ, relied on.

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 639 of
2003.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2000 of the High Court in
Delhi in LPA 335/98.

Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, for the Appellants.

C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sunil Kumar Jain, A.K. Shahi, M.P. Sharma and
E Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

Interpretation of an order passed by this Court in R. K. Panda & Others.
F v. Steel Authority of India and Ors., [1994) 5 sec 304 is in question in this ....:;..
appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 25th May, 2000
passed by the High Court of D'eihi in LP.A. No.335 of 1998 whereby and
whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant from the judgment and
order dated 15th July, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said
G Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant was upheld.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The workers of the
Rourkela Steel Plant filed a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, for a :j.._
direction that they be held to be entitled to be paid the same pay as is paid
to the regular employees and be treated as such on the premise that they had
H been employed by various contractors and were doing jobs which are perennial
ROURK ELA SHRAMIK SANGH r STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA, l} 707

in nature and identical to what were bein!\ done by regular employees of the A
Plant. This Court having regard to the various interim orders passed from
time to time did not relegate the workmen to avail the remedies under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 and, inter alia, directed :·

"(i) All labourers, who had been initially engaged through contractors
but have been continuously working with the respondent for the B
last ten years on different jobs assigned to them in spite of the
replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by
the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found
medically fit and if they are below 58 years of age, which is the
age of superannuation under the respondent.
c
xxx xxx xxx xxx
,_ (vi) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so
absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded
as a bar to such retrenchment.
(vii) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the D
contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute
shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
on material produced before him by the parties concerned.
(viii)This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 jobs out
of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract labour has already E
been abolished in I 04 jobs."

The appellants therein, however, filed interlocutory applications for
directions marked as I.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of I 99 l before this Court wherein the
following prayers were made :·
F
"(a) That the respondents be directed to regularize the service of all
the workmen working in any of the 246 jobs at the time of filing
of this petition and continuously working since then;

(b) Clarify that the standards of medical fitness to be applied in
case of these workmen should be the standards used for regular G
workmen for their retrenchment;

(c) Clarify that this judgment dated 12.5.94 would also apply to
those workmen who had been retrenched in 1990 and 1992 and
have not yet been taken back in employment;

( d) Direct the respondents to pay wages to those 292 workmen who H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A were kept out of employment for the period 22.5.89 to 30.11.89,
contrary to the orders of this Cou11."

Prayers (a) and (b) were not pressed and in relation to prayers (c) and
(d), this Court clarified that if any of the workmen is not absorbed/regularized
despite this Court's directions/orders, the workmen concerned would be at
B libe11y to pursue any other remedy or may approach any other authority
prescribed under law.

Pursuant to er in furtherance of the said directions of this Cou11 (quoted
supra), 5340 applications were received and out of said applicants 2677
applicants were found eligible for absorption by the management. Cases of
C 2663 workmen were referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in
tenns of the said judgment.

In its order dated 4th January, 1995, the Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) New Delhi put the workmen in eight different categories which are
as under :-
D
"Category Applicants otherwise eligible but above 58 years of
age.

Category 2 Applicants above 58 years of age and also otherwise
not ineligible for not completing ten years of
E continuous working.

Category 3 (A) Not completed ten years of continuous working
on the applicant's own declarations.

Category 3 (B) Applicant admits gap in claim for continuous
working for ten years.
F
Category 4 Applicants claimed 10 years of continuous working
in the jobs continuing to exist but not established on
the basis of records enclosed with the application
and those available with the Department including
E.S.I. registration date.
G
Category 5 Applicants claimed 10 years of continuous working
had not substantiated only due to short gap in
finalization and award of the concerned contract.

Category 6 Applicants claimed more than I 0 years of continuous
H working admitting gap to the period of 10 years which
ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH''· STEELAUTHORITYOF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J] 709

corresponds to the actual short gap in finalisation A
and award of the contract.

Category 7 : Applicants claimed 10 years of cbntinuous working or
admitted that gap in contract having short gap in
finalisation and award of contract but claim not
established even otherwise on the basis of records B
enclosed with the applications and those available
within departn1ent including E.S.I. registration date.

Category 8 : Clai1n not entertained as na1nes of clailnants do not
appear in the wage sheets of covered jobs."

The said authority further laid down a criteria that the matter relating
to identification of the concerned workmen and determination of their period
of work would be made on the basis of the Employees State Insurance Card
and Employees Provident Fund Card. Applying the said norm he arrived at
a finding that 360 workmen were eligible for absorption. The appellant D
Association filed an application for review before the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) on 31st January, 1995 and upon consideration of the
matter again he found that 523 workmen were also eligible for absorption.

In support of the said finding he assigned sufficient and cogent reasons.
The said order was implemented by the respondent herein. E
The appellants therein filed an interlocutory application marked as I.A.
No.10 of 1995 on 24th July, 1995, praying for the following reliefs:

"(a) direct the respondents to take back those 1800 and odd workmen
who had been illegally retrenched by the respondents on 10.4.95 F
and not to retrench them until there is a need for retrenchment
on the ground of surplusage of labour;

(b) direct that all tnose workmen who had completed I 0 years of
service by I 0.4.1995 would be eligible for regularization."

However, when the matter came up for consideration before this Court
G
on 16th October, 1995, they sought leave to withdraw the said petition
whereupon, the following order came to be passed :-

"The applicant may, if so advised, seek a reference of any fresh
alleged dispute which has arisen between the workmen and the H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A management or approach the authority in accordance with law. The
I.A. is dismissed as withdrawn."

We may notice that in the said application, the appellants therein made
the aforementioned prayers, inter alia, alleging :-

B "That thereafter, after various hearing and reports sought and
given by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad,
the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) finally passed an order
dated 1.5.95 by which he directed another 522 workmen to be eligible;
thus, still leaving out approximately 1800 workmen out of those who
had applied for regularization on the basis that they had put in more
c than I 0 years continuous service.

That the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) while deciding
the applications of the workmen took cognizance of only the entry
date in the Employees State Insurance Registration Card and the
Employees Provident Fund declaration forms. This was despite the
D
fact that the Employees State Insurance Registration Card of a large ~
number of workmen were not made till 1986 and despite the fact that
the Provident Fund declarations were also not done by the contractors
in respect of many workmen till 1986 when this petition was filed in
this Court. In those cases, the workmen were not given Employees
E State Insurance Registration cards and Employees Provident Fund
declarations prior to 1986. The workmen concerned, therefore,
produced various documentary e~idences of their employment since
1984 such as wage sheets signed by the officers of the principal
employer, contractor and the workmen, Annual Provident Fund
account slips, Service Certificates issued by the Contractor/officers of
F the Respondent company, tripartite agreements giving the names of
the workmen, identity cards, wages slips etc."

It was further alleged :

" ...... The fact is that the retrenchment of these 1800 workmen is not
G a planned one or retrenchment forced due to surplusage of labour but
merely an attempt to get rid of these workmen who had the courage
to approach this Hon'ble Court for relief. In fact, all these workmen
were, in fact and in law, employed through contractors. They were
. clearly covered by the principles laid down by this court in the recent
H decision of Justice P.B. Sawant in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind
ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGH,. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA, .I.] 7 J ]

Mazdoor Sabha and Ors,. JT (1995] 4 SC 264. It was unfortunately, A.
however, this Hon'ble Cou11 could not go into the question whether
these workmen were in fact and in law entitled to be considered to
be employed by the Respondent company in this writ petition, The
petitioners now will :1ave to approach the Industrial Tribunal for this,
which would take considerable time. In the meanwhile, these 1800 B
workmen and their families are on the streets. It may also be pointed
out that the management of Rourkela Steel Plant have not yet complied
·• even with the orders of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)
dated 1.5.1995 in which he had held another 523 workmen to be
eligible for regularisation."

It is, thus, evident that the contentions raised herein and in the said
c
interlocutory application, are identical.

Despite the aforementioned order dated 16th October, 1995, the writ
petition was filed by the appellant herein which was marked as C. W.P. No.2963
of 1995. By an order dated 15th July, 1998, the said writ petition was D
dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a L.P.A. which was also
dismissed by reason of the impugned order.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, has raised two contentions in suppon of this appeal. Firstly, it was
submitted that keeping in view the clear and unequivocal directions of this E
Court in the aforen1entioned judg1nent, the Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) could not have directed that the identity of the concerned workmen
would be established only with reference to the E.S.I. Card or P.F. Card
although several \Vork1nen had various docu1nents in their possession, e.g.,
identity card, service certificate, wage-sheet etc. to prove their case. It was F
next submitted that some workmen had even been retrenched during the
earlier proceedings despite an order of injunction having been passed in that
behalf, and, thus, were entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Court.
The learned counsel would submit that the approach of the High Court in

.. passing the impugned judgment must be held to be erroneous inasmuch the
writ petition could not be dismissed only because the appellant withdrew I.A. G
No.IO of 1995 wherein the said order dated 16th October, 1995 was passed.
It was submitted that the reliefs prayed for in the said interlocutory application
had nothing to do with the subject matter of the writ petition which was
disposed of by this Court.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan would further urge that as the High Court is also H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A an authority, the appellants herein could also file a writ petition pursuant to
or in furtherance of the observations made by this Court in its order dated
16th October, 199 5.

Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing o~ behalf of
the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellants having filed
B I.A. No. 9 of 1991 and I.A. No. I 0 of 1995 before this Court raising identical
questions could not raise the same again by filing an application under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and the remedy therefor available to them, .)!.-'
•·
if any, was merely to approach the Industrial Court in terms of the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
c Mr. Vaidyanathan would contend that at the later stage of the enquiry,
the Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, had also taken into consideration
other documents produced by the workmen and arrived at a finding that no
reliance can. be placed thereupon.

The question as to whether the concerned workmen had been
D
continuously working for a period often years so as to enable them to derive
benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K. Panda's case was essentially a
question of fact. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) while determining
the said question was not acting as a statutory authority. He was merely
acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the directions of this Court.
E
The appellants herein, as noticed hereinbefore, immediately after the
I?ronouncement of the judgment of this Court apprehended that a large number
of workmen may be retrenched. They, therefore, sought for clarification by
filing the aforementioned I.As. No. 8 and 9 of 1991, which as noticed
F hereinbefore, were disposed of directing that in the event they are aggrieved
by an order of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), they may take
recourse to such proceedings as are available to them in law.

It is interesting to note that in the interlocutory application marked as
I.A. No. I 0 of 1995, the appellants themselves stated :
r
G " ....... The petitioners now will have to approach the Industrial Tribunal
for this, which would take considerable time. In the meanwhile, these
1800 workmen and their families are on the streets .. "

There cannot, thus, be any doubt whatsoever that the appellants were
H fully aware of the fact that they were required to approach the Industrial
ROURK ELA SHRAMIK SANGH"· STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 713

Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for ventilating A
their grievances. The submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan to the effect that the
High Court acts as an authority while exercising its power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced. The order of this Court
dated 16th October, 1995, as quoted supra, is absolutely clear and
unambiguous. The term 'authority' used in this Court's order dated 16th B
October, 1995 must be read in the context in which it was used. The appellant
in terms thereof could seek a reference which would mean a reference in
terms of Section I 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It could also approach 'the
authority in accordance with law' which would mean authority under a statute.
The High Court, by nci stretch of imagination, can be an authority under a
statute. c
Furthermore, even otherwise, a disputed question of fact normally would
not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also
been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of
India Ltd and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., [2001]
7 sec I. In any event, the orders of the Chief Labour Commissioner dated D
4th January, 1995 also shows that other documents which were placed on
record by the workmen had also been scrutinized and they had not been
found reliable.
.. 'f-
We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for
interference with the impugned judgment. E
This appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

..-
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.