Aparesh Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the Respondent Union of India and the Steel Authority of India Limited(SAIL) are also represented through their Counsel but no one has appeared on their behalf.
(2.) The writ petition is of the year 2000. Petitioner herein is a workman who claims to be engaged as contract labour doing loading and unloading work in the stockyard of SAIL at Bokaro Steel Limited(BSL) for last 15 years or more. He has approached this Court for issuance of writ/order/directions upon the Respondents to immediately abolish the system of Contract Labour of Bokaro Trading Company, who has been engaged in loading and unloading job of the materials in the Stockyard of SAIL for the last 15 years and also absorb the petitioner working there in the regular employment of BSL under SAIL. He has also requested for a detailed inquiry into the nature of work undertaken at the Stockyard for the purpose of determination whether the said work is in the nature of permanent nature of job, which falls under the criteria prescribed under Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and on such finding the Respondents are duty bound to abolish the prohibited Contract Labour System in the SAIL. Petitioner also prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject and absorb such Contract Labours in regular employment under SAIL after abolishing the prohibited practise. Consequential relief of arrears of difference of wages have also been sought pursuant to such determination.
(3.) When the matter was taken up on 14.3.2013, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed in order to have a considered response of the Respondents, Ministry of Labour, Government of India:- Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and upon report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central and Regional Labour Commissioner Central as also the recommendation contained at Annexure-8 by the Director Training under the office of Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 29th February, 2000, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India is under the statutory obligation to take a decision as to whether prohibition notification under Section 10(1) is required to be issued in respect of the case of these workmen who are claiming to be engaged for perennial nature of work since last 15-20 long years through contractor of the respondent-SAIL. In order to arrive at a determination of issue raised in the writ application, it is proper that the respondent-Ministry of Labour, Government of India, who is only a party in the instant case, submit their considered response. It appears that earlier time has been granted to the respondent-Union of India for filing their affidavits, but no affidavit has been filed till date on their behalf, though the matter relates to the year 2000. It is submitted that the name of Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI is not appearing as counsel for the Union of India in the cause list. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition along with pleading upon the Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI within a week. Since the matter relates to the year 2000, list this case after four weeks to enable the respondent-Union of India to file its considered response through affidavit in the instant case by way of one more indulgence. Let the name of Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI appear in the cause list henceforth as counsel for the Union of India. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI.;