AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief: (A) For issuance of a writ of certioran or in nature thereof for quashing/canceling/rescinding - (i) The order date 20/12/2003 (Annexure -9) passed by learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in a proceeding under Section 33'C'(2) of Industrial Disputes Act in M.J. Case No. 15 of 1988, wherein the learned Labour Court held that real employer of the respondents Nos. 2 to 41 is the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 57,823,00 to each of the respondents. (ii) The order dated 25.10.1989 by learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in above proceeding being M.J. Case No. 15 of 1988 (Annexure -7) refusing to treat the decision of earlier similar proceedings being M.J. Case Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of 1979 (Annexure -2 to series to 5) as res -judicata. (iii) The order dated 11.06.1991 passed by learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in above proceeding being M.J. Case No. 15 of 1988 (Annexure -8) whereby he rejected the petitioner's petition dated 16.04.1990. By petition dated 16.04.1991 the petitioner has challenged the authority and/or jurisdiction of learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to abolish the contract labour system even by implication, therefore, it did not have jurisdiction to deal or decide the issue/matter raised in the case about employee relationship. (B) For issuance of a writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding / restraining the respondent No. 1 from enforcing the order dated 20.12.2003 as it will have effect of abolition of contract labour by an incompetent authority and contrary to the provisions contained in Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
(2.) THE main contention raised by the learned senior Counsel Mr. V.P. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the order passed under Section 33'C'(2) of Industrial Dispute Act is without jurisdiction and not maintainable. He further submits that there was no employer and employee relationship and there was no determination of any dispute more so when the earlier amended reference dated 5.7.1995 specifically referred the dispute with regard to employer and employee relationship for adjudication. The further case of the petitioner is that in any event the impugned order dated 20.12.2003 is barred by the principles of res -judicata. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that they are the employees of the petitioner and even the P.F. was paid by Telco and thus there was employer and employee relationship.
(3.) BE that as it may, there is no dispute about the fact that even in the earlier round petition under Section 33'C'(2) of Industrial Dispute Act was moved before learned labour Court, Jamshedpur on behalf of the same workmen and by a detailed speaking order dated 2.2.81 it was held as under: 7. 'Admittedly the applicant are not workmen of Telco; rather they are workmen of the said three contractor's, so their claim for wages and benefits at par with the wages and benefit of the workmen of Telco can not be decided in a proceeding Under Section 33'C'(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. If they have any grievance on this score they are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. In the result, it is therefore.;