Pending adjudication of main dispute, the management Respondent No.
True companyy attested sd Regional Labor Commissioaer Central Madras.
The demands were number companyplied with.
It is under these circumstances the Special Leave Petition came to be filed after a delay of 223 days.
1 to do various jobs.
The Principal Labour Court, Madurai, allowed the application by the impugned order dated 28.8.91 and terminated the proceedings.
Inasmuch as they were neither paid the same wages number were they allowed the same working companyditions allowed by the principal employer, namely, Respondent No.
1 to its own workmen.
Respondent No.
Respondent Nos.
On companysideration of the report and the other relevant facts a numberification was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 23rd September, 1987 under Section 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act that the dispute between the union and the management of India Cements companytractors relating to number employment of 300 workers be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madurai.
The Union of India supports the appellant and filed a companynter in which it is clearly averred that under Notification dated 8.12.77 issued under Section 39 of the Act, the powers exerciseable by the Government of India in relation to cement industry shall also be exercised by State Governments, except in the cases of mines and quarries forming part of cement industry where the Central Government alone has jurisdiction.
The powers exercised by the Central Government under the Act are equally exerciseable by the State Government.
Notices were issued on 25.9.92 both on the SLP as well on the application for companydonation of delay.
At the relevant time these respondents employed 300 and odd workers.
1 preferred an Interlocutory Application of determination as a preliminary issue that the reference by the State of Tamil Nadu is bad since the appropriate authority in relation to the cement industry is the Central Government.
The services of these workers were terminated.
The appellant union raised demands to make companytract labour permanent as mandated by law by removing the intermediary companytractOrs.
The appellant is a union of workmen employed in the establishments of Respondent No.l at Sankarnagar in the State of Tamil Nadu.
1 is a companypany with major financial input by various financial institutions in the companyntry.
3 to 14 are companytractors who were employed by the Respondent No.
Conciliation proceedings took place on various dates.
Therefore, a dispute was raised.
They claimed to have worked companytinuously for a period of over 10 years.
Ultimately on 22.9.86 a failure report by Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, was submitted.
Mohan, J. Leave granted.
Delay companydoned.
