- (1.) This review application has been filed by the petitioner praying for modification of the order passed by this court on 24.03.2009 whereby after giving a finding in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the merit of the petitioner's case, this court had directed the petitioner to approach the High Powered Committee formed by the Central Government for reconsideration of the petitioner's dispute.
(2.) Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, informs that in compliance with the direction as contained in the aforesaid order, the petitioner had approached the High Powered Committee, but no resolution of the dispute, as raised by the petitioner in the writ application, was made by the High Powered Committee, on the ground that it is not empowered to resolve the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner and by its concluding observation, as indicated in its order (Annexure-1), has directed the petitioner to approach the High Court again.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Powered Committee as constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the earlier writ applications, is intended only for the purposes of resolving disputes arising between the two PSEs and not for resolving any such dispute raised by the petitioner in the writ application and therefore, considering the fact that this court had, in its concluding observation, declared that the impugned notification of the Government under section (1) & (2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 has been issued without application of mind and as per the mandatory requirement under section 10 (1) &(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the Advisory Committee and not to the High Powered Committee.;