Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) The Central Government (hereafter 'the Govt.', for short) exercising power conferred by section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereafter 'the CLRA Act', for short), prohibited employment of contract labour in the establishment of Lube Oil Blending Plant of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Budge Budge (hereafter 'the IOC', for short) by a notification published in the Official Gazette dated May 25, 2011 (hereafter 'the said notification', for short). The said notification was challenged by the IOC before the writ court basically on a couple of grounds, viz. (i) there was no "consultation" between the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereafter 'the Board', for short) and the Govt. prior to issuance of the said notification, as mandated by section 10 of the CLRA Act; and (ii) the Board denied natural justice to the IOC by not granting an opportunity of hearing and opportunity of making representation against the proposed abolition. The learned Judge, who had the occasion to consider the writ petition, allowed the same by a judgment and order dated September 12, 2017. His Lordship was impressed with the first ground of challenge and as such while setting aside the said notification based on the same, did not examine the other ground. The soundness of the said judgment is questioned in this intra-court appeal by the private respondent in the writ petition (hereafter 'the Union', for short).
(2.) The affidavit-in-opposition of the Govt. to the writ petition filed before the writ court did not indicate any "consultation" between the Board and the Govt. The learned Judge cannot, therefore, be faulted for returning the finding that there was no "consultation" as mandated by the relevant statute. However, inept drafting of a counter affidavit cannot have the effect of robbing the Govt. or any authority answering the description of "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution to rely on the official records. Also, "consultation" as mandated by section 10 of the CLRA Act does not mean that prior to issuance of a notification thereunder, it is the sine qua non that the Board and the Govt. represented by its authorized officers, being the consulting parties, should meet together, discuss the points across the table and arrive at an informed decision. In view thereof, we considered it appropriate to look into the records.
(3.) Mr. Kaushik Chanda, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Govt. having been called upon by us, placed the relevant records for our consideration. Copies of the relevant documents were made over to the learned advocates-onrecords for the Union and the IOC.;