- (1.) A writ petition was filed before the High court for certain reliefs as to continuation of the grant of contract for loading and unloading, handling, transport and labour work in the various godowns of Hafed, Karkfed, Confed, agro Nafed, etc. to the appellant-Union directly and not to any contractor from the period from April 1, 1995 onwards. The High court dismissed the petition in limine.
(2.) On the matter being brought up before this Court in these proceedings, on December 14, 1999 directed respondent No. 1 State of haryana to constitute a Committee under section 5 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to consider whether the contract labour system should be abolished or not and the said Committee was to submit its report to the State Advisory Contract Labour Board as early as possible.
(3.) Thereafter, a report was submitted by respondent No. 1. Contesting the correctness of this report another report was filed before this Court by the appellant pointing out that there have been certain interpolations and corrections in the report submitted to this Court and did not truly reflect the proceedings of the meetings of the Committee held on different dates. In reply on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is stated that after the meeting was over though the report had been finalised as certain details had not been set out another meeting was held by the member of the Committee concerned and another report was prepared to that effect which has been filed before this court. However, to that latter report the workmen's representative is not a signatory, the report made available to this Court by appellant all the members of the Committee have signed. When that report was drawn a signatures of all members were obtained a the meeting was over. That another meeting was held on the same date after that meeting highly unlikely. When these details have been brought to the notice of this Court early the stand of respondent No. 1 'looks to artificial to us and is set up to get over difficulty of filing an incorrect report before this Court. In the circumstances, the conditions of respondent No. 1 is reprehensible. They aspects though disturbing will not solve problem before us.;