2003 (1) TMI 716 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's order in R.K. Panda & Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others.
2. Eligibility criteria for absorption of contract laborers.
3. Validity of the Chief Labour Commissioner's method for identifying eligible workmen.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Whether the appellants were required to approach the Industrial Tribunal.

Analysis of Judgment:

1. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Order in R.K. Panda & Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others:
The Supreme Court's order in R.K. Panda & Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others directed that laborers who had been continuously working for ten years with the respondent should be absorbed as regular employees, subject to medical fitness and age criteria. The order also allowed the respondent to retrench absorbed workmen according to the law and specified that disputes regarding the identification of eligible laborers would be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).

2. Eligibility Criteria for Absorption of Contract Laborers:
The Supreme Court's order mandated that laborers who had been continuously working for ten years should be absorbed. The Chief Labour Commissioner categorized the applicants into eight different categories based on their eligibility, primarily focusing on their age and the continuity of their employment. The criteria included the use of Employees State Insurance (ESI) Cards and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Cards to determine the period of work.

3. Validity of the Chief Labour Commissioner's Method for Identifying Eligible Workmen:
The Chief Labour Commissioner initially used ESI and EPF cards to identify eligible workmen, which led to disputes. The appellants argued that other documents like identity cards, service certificates, and wage sheets should also be considered. The Commissioner later reviewed additional documents but found them unreliable. The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's method, noting that the identification process was conducted per the Court's directions and found no reason to interfere with the findings.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court clarified that the term "authority" in its previous order referred to statutory authorities under the law, not the High Court. The Court emphasized that disputed questions of fact are generally not entertained in writ proceedings, and the appropriate forum for such disputes is the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Whether the Appellants Were Required to Approach the Industrial Tribunal:
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants were aware they needed to approach the Industrial Tribunal for their grievances, as stated in their interlocutory application. The Court reaffirmed that the appellants should seek remedies through the Industrial Tribunal, as the High Court cannot act as a statutory authority under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and the Chief Labour Commissioner's method for identifying eligible workmen. The Court reiterated that the appropriate forum for resolving such disputes is the Industrial Tribunal, not the High Court under Article 226. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.