Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8151 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No.822 of 2013)

M/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD.        … APPELLANT

VERSUS

PARADEEP PHOSPHATE MAZDOOR UNION & ORS.     … RESPONDENTS

With

Civil Appeal No.8152 of 2014

(@)S.L.P(C) No.23088 of 2014 @ SLP(C) CC No. 4627/2013)

J U D G M E N T  

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The  Division  Bench  of  Orissa  High  Court,  Cuttack  by  its  

impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2012 in O.J.C. No.7464 of  

2000  allowed  the  writ  petition  preferred  by  respondents  and  

directing the appellant to enforce notification dated 28th April,  

2000 issued by the State Government for abolition of the Contract  

Labour in respect of workers engaged in DAP Plant-cleaning of  

Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. The

Page 2

2

Division Bench further directed the appellant to regularize the  

workers engaged in the DAP plant.

The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the appellant by  

filing a review petition.  The same was heard and disposed of vide  

impugned order dated 20th December, 2012 by which the judgment  

dated 17th September,2012 was modified to the extent that not all  

the workers engaged in DAP Plant but those who were engaged in  

cleaning of  Granulation, dry section,  cleaning in combustion  

chamber, were directed to be regularized. The aforesaid judgment  

and order passed in writ petition and review petition are under  

challenge in these appeals.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

A writ petition being O.J.C. No. 7464 of 2000 was filed by  

the  respondents-Paradeep  Phosphates  Mazdoor  Union  and  others  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  “Trade  Union”)   seeking  

enforcement  of  Notification dated 28th April, 2000 issued by the  

State Government abolishing contract labour  in respect of workers  

in DAP Plant-cleaning of  Granulation, dry section,  cleaning in  

combustion  chamber,  etc.  The  respondents  contended  that  the  

workers  named  therein  were  working  in  the  DAP  plant  of  the  

appellant- M/s Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as  

the “Company”) for over 14 years uninterruptedly without any break  

in service. They had been engaged through contractors appointed  

for the purpose from time to time   The contractors were changed

Page 3

3

but  the  employees  were  continuing  their  work  irrespective  of  

change of contractors.  In the meantime,   those workers completed  

15  years  of  service  in  the  particular  establishment.  It  was  

submitted that, the Trade Union took up the matter considering the  

fate  of  such  persons  and  several  other  workers  engaged  in  

different  establishments  of  the  Company  for  prohibition  of  

contract referring different establishments of the Company and for  

regularization of such employees in terms of Section 10(1) of the  

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.  After much  

deliberation  and  in  active  participation  of   the  Company,  

decision has been taken by the State Advisory Contract Labour  

Board in its 21st meeting dated 3rd June, 1999 and 10th June, 1999  

for  prohibiting  contract labour system in  16 areas of the  

Company and the same was accordingly recommended  by the State  

Advisory Board.

4. Meanwhile, the Government of Orissa through its Labour and  

Employment  Department  came  out  with  a  Notification  dated  28th  

April,  2000  prohibiting  employment  of  contract  labour  in  the  

works in the Company particularly in  the DAP Plant-cleaning of  

Granulation, dry section,  cleaning in combustion chamber, etc.  

It was submitted  that on  behalf of  the Trade Union that once  

there is a  prohibition  of competent authority  for engaging  

contract  labourers  in  a  particular  work  in  the  particular  

establishment, the only course left  with the establishment is to

Page 4

4

straight away treat the persons concerned as the regular employees  

of  the  particular  establishment  and  the  relationship   between  

contractor and the contract labourers ceases automatically  from  

the said moment when there is an order prohibiting employment of  

contract labour in particular  work of a particular establishment.  

Thus,  it  was  contended  that  the  only  course  open  for  the  

management is to regularize the employees  of the establishment  

who were working under the contractor.

5. It  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  High  Court  that  on  

earlier  occasions,  another  writ  application  was  filed  bearing  

O.J.C. No.2751 of 2000 which was disposed of on 24th June, 2003  

wherein the parties were common.  The said writ application was  

disposed of by the High Court with the following observation:

“7. There  is  no  dispute  that  the  State  Advisory Contract Labour Board recommended to  the State Government to abolish contract labour  system in sixteen areas of Paradeep Phosphates  Limited  but  in  the  Government  notification  dated  28.4.2000  only  one  area  has  been  mentioned.  On reading of the note and order of  the Minister extracted above, we are inclined  to  hold  that  the  Government  has  not  fully  considered  the  recommendation.  Therefore,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  the  matter  needs  reconsideration.

8. For the reasons aforesaid,  we  direct  the State Government (opposite party no.1) to  reconsider  the  recommendation  of  the  State  Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to  abolition of contract labour in respect of 15  other   areas  left  out  by  it  and  take  appropriate  decision  according  to  law  within  four months of receipt of this order.”

Page 5

5

6. In  spite  of  the  aforesaid  direction,  no  action  has  been  

taken.   Later the aforesaid writ petition being O.J.C. No. 7464  

of 2000 was preferred with the prayer as noticed above. In the  

said case, the Company appeared and filed a counter affidavit  

taking  plea  that  the  State  Government  is  not  appropriate  

government for the purpose of the Act and the notification issued  

by the State Government is not binding upon the Company and did  

not order for  abolition of contract labour.

7. The High Court while observing that the Company failed to  

substantiate its stand that the undertaking is controlled by the  

Central Government, referred to the decision of this Court in  

Steel Authority of India Limited and Others vs. National Union  

Water Front Workers and  Others, AIR 2001 SC 3527 and held that  

the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in such  

cases. It was also noticed that this plea was not taken when the  

earlier writ petition was heard.

8. Similar pleas as were taken before the High Court have been  

taken by the appellant and the contesting respondents before this  

Court.

9. From the record, we find that when earlier writ application  

OJC No. 2751 of 2000  was disposed of by judgment dated 24th June,  

2003,  the  High  Court  directed  the  Company  to  consider  the  

recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board with  

regard to  abolition of Contract Labour in respect of 15 other

Page 6

6

areas  left out by  it  and to take appropriate decision according  

to law,  though  the Company was a party to the  said writ  

application but no such plea was taken and the direction  of the  

High Court reached  finality.

10. Another Writ Petition being W.P(c) No. 13791 of 2005 was also  

disposed of by the High Court on 5th July, 2012. In the said case  

similar question regarding implementation of the recommendation of  

the State Advisory Contract Labour Board was considered.  In the  

said case also, the appellant-Company neither contended nor raised  

the question that the State Government is not the appropriate  

government. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High  

Court on 5th July, 2012.   

11. We are of the view that since the decisions in the aforesaid  

writ petitions have reached finality, such question cannot be re-

agitated in another writ petition between same parties as the  

question will be hit by the principles of res judicata.

12. Now once the Notification dated 28th April, 2000 for abolition  

of  contract  labour  in  respect  of  the  workers  in  DAP  Plant  –

Cleaning  of  granulation  dry  section,  cleaning  in  combustion  

chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on the part of the  

Company to implement the same.  Since it was not implemented, the  

High Court rightly directed to implement the same.   

13. In  view  of  the  fact  as  noticed  above,  while  we  are  not  

inclined to answer the question about the appropriate government

Page 7

7

in the present case, keep the same open for determination in an  

appropriate case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned  

judgment and order by which the High Court directed the appellant  

to implement the notification abolishing the contract labour and  

to regularize the service of the workmen.

14. We  find  no  merit  in  these  appeals,  they  are  accordingly  

dismissed.

............................J.                      (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

...........................J.                (S.A. BOBDE)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 26, 2014.