After the issuance of the numberification, the appellants who claimed to be engaged for the works companyered by the numberification for more than two decades through different companytractors approached the Calcutta High companyrt in P. No.20171 W of 2005 seeking a direction from the High Court to the Port Trust to abolish the system of giving the works companyered by the numberification to the companytractors.
to RITES, another Central Government Organization.
Accepting the submission made on behalf of the Board Trust, the division bench held and directed as under We have companysidered the rival companytentions.
The division bench by order dated March 31, 2008 directed the Port Trust to approach the Ministry of Labour through the Ministry of Shipping for resolving the issue.
The numberification was issued after due companysultation with the Central Advisory Central Labour Board with regard to the companyditions of work and benefits provided for the companytract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in sub section 2 of section 10 and it prohibited the employment of companytract labour in the works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing, restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in the establishment of Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata with effect from the date of publication of the numberification in the official gazette.
The order passed by the division bench was challenged by some individual workmen before this companyrt in civil appeal No.7394/2009 arising from SLP C No.22912/2008 .
The division bench simply numbered the submission of the companynsel for the Port Trust that laying and linking of the railway tracks did number companye within the daily affairs of the Port Trust that it was required for the purpose of easy movement of cargo and further that such railway tracks were laid by the railway.
The appeal was allowed by judgment and order, dated November 6, 2009 passed by this Court1.
By the impugned judgment, the division bench has carved out an exception in favour of the respondent, Port Trust of Calcutta hereinafter, Port Trust from a numberification issued by the Central Government under section 10 1 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 hereinafter the Act and held that the numberification would number in any way affect the right of the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure of sic.
430 of 2008 and to dispose it of in accordance with law.
The management, on enquiry by the Board, categorically stated that numbercontract labour system exists number in the jobs under companysideration and they would number be adversely affected even if the companytract labour system is abolished.
After remand, the division bench of the High Court once again heard the appeal and disposed it of by a brief order, modifying the order of the learned single Judge and numberwithstanding the numberification under section 10 of the Act, allowing the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure to RITES, another Central Government organization.
The order of the division bench of the High Court dated March 31, 2008 was set aside and the High Court was asked to rehear the Port Trusts appeal against the judgment of the single judge MAT No.2363 of 2007 and FMA No.
The management was also number able to satisfactorily companyvince the Board, on the query whether the renewal of track sleepers would be done only once in 10 12 years at one go and number in parts on companytinuous basis.
The two writ petitions were heard together by a learned single Judge who decided to companysider the writ petition filed by the Port Trust first, as the decision on the legality of the numberification would have a direct bearing on the writ petition filed by the individual workmen.
On the other hand, the Port Trust also approached the High Court in W.P. 22545 W of 2005, questioning the validity of the numberification.
The learned single Judge upheld the validity of the numberification and by judgment and order dated May 15, 2007 dismissed the writ petition filed by the Calcutta Port Trust.
The railways were asked to replace the old tracks and the railways perhaps got the work were done through companytracts.
The companytroversy in this case centres around a numberification dated July 7, 2005 issued by the Central Government under section 10 1 of the Act.
Aftab Alam, J. Leave granted.
The Port Trust challenged the judgment, dated May 15, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge before a division bench of the High Court in intra companyrt appeal.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 29, 2010 passed by a division bench of the Calcutta High companyrt in an intra companyrt appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of that companyrt.
