The Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. orderajit kumar sinha, j.1. the present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit the records relating to the case of the petitioner to this hon'ble court so that your lordship on perusal thereof may do conscionable justice to the petitioner by quashing, setting aside, modifying, canceling, varying and/or altering any order, and, in particular (i) the notification as contained in notification no. s.o. 664e dated 09.06.2003 whereby and whereunder the government of india in exercise of powers conferred under section 10(1) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act of 1970 has prohibited the employment of contract labour in the job/work of raising and tracking of iron ore in the establishment of manoharpur mines of steel authority of india limited, chiriya, district-singhbhum-west, bihar with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette; and (ii) minutes and the decision of the 42nd meeting of the central advisory contract labour board (cadlb) held on 12-13th december 2002 as contained in item no. 22 whereby and whereunder the board had decided taking into consideration the judgment in the l.p.a. no. 111 of 2002 that nothing new has to be done in the case rather there was an error in the language of the earlier notification and left the matter to the government for rectifying the notification; holding them to have been passed illegally and adversely affecting the interest of the petitioner;ii) for issuance of a further writ/order/direction from this hon'ble court commanding upon the concerned respondents to forbear them from giving effect to acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the notification no. s.o. 664e dated 09.06.2003.2. the petitioner in the instant case is indian iron & steel co. ltd. which is a central government public undertaking under the ministry of steel and is also a estate within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of india. in the instant case the relief claimed is a challenge to the notification issued by the government of india in exercise of its power conferred under section 10(1) & (2) of the contract labour (regulation & abolition) act 1970 vide which the employment of contract labour has been prohibited.3. shri anil kumar sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the notification issued by the central government is in the teeth of the earlier order passed by the division bench of this hon'ble court. the hon'ble division bench while referring to and relying upon the : (2001)iillj1087sc (steel authority of india ltd. and ors. v. national union waterfront workers and ors.) held that the appropriate government has not complied with the statutory and mandatory requirement as provided under clauses (a) to (d) of section 10(2) of the contract labour (regulation & abolition) act 1970.4. the learned senior counsel has further submitted that the impugned notification subsequently issued vide agenda item no. 22 reiterates its earlier notification by making a statement that the requirement of section 10(2) was duly considered by the board before making their recommendation and the error, if any, is in the language of the notification issued by the government.5. in the light of the aforesaid observation it is rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was total non-application of mind and rather it was reiteration of the earlier order/notification which was quashed and thus there is no compliance of the statutory mandatory requirement as provided in clauses (a) to (d).6. be that as it may, it is also relevant to refer the view expressed by the hon'ble supreme court in matters relating to disputes between public sector central government undertakings and union of india. the first case was of o.n.g.c., a public sector undertaking in which the hon'ble supreme court vide its judgment reported in issued a direction to set up a high powered committee with an object that the litigation or dispute between the central government and its undertaking should not come to court without availing of the opportunity of conciliation before in house committee. in the said judgment (supra) it was also directed that even matters pending before courts and tribunals should be referred to the high powered committee for its deliberation and detailed instructions were issued in this regard.7. again the hon'ble supreme court in : 1994(70)elt45(sc) (oil & natural gas commission v. collector of central excise) while clarifying the o.n.g.c. case (supra) at paragraph 5 held as under:5. it is also clarified that even the pending matters before any court or tribunal should also be the subject-matter of the deliberations of the high-powered committee. all the matters pending as of today either instituted by the union of india or any of the public sector undertakings shall within one month from today be referred by the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be, to the high-powered committee. the high-powered committee will deal with these matters most expeditiously and endeavour to resolve the matters.8. it is further relevant to state that the hon'ble supreme court while referring to and relying upon the judgment (supra) further clarified and held as under:8. ...it is only after such reference to the high-powered committee is made in the manner indicated that the operation of the order or proceedings under challenge shall be suspended till the high-powered committee resolves the dispute or gives clearance to the litigation.9. the aforesaid view was again reiterated in : (2009)1scc497 (rajkamal builders v. ahmedabad municipal corporation and ors.) and at paragraph 10 it has been hold that the dispute should be sorted out between them by mutual negotiations or through the high powered committee, before the issued is considered by the court.10. in the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements time and again, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to approach the high powered committee in the light of the decision and directions issued from time to time by the hon'ble supreme court.11. it is further relevant to direct that the notification dated 9.06.2003 in question shall be kept in abeyance and or be suspended during the pendency of reference to the high powered committee for resolution of the dispute.considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and the direction as issued this writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the high powered committed to take a decision preferably within a period of six months from the date of reference of the dispute.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit the records relating to the case of the petitioner to this Hon'ble Court so that your Lordship on perusal thereof may do conscionable justice to the petitioner by quashing, setting aside, modifying, canceling, varying and/or altering any order, and, in particular (i) the Notification as contained in Notification No. S.O. 664E dated 09.06.2003 whereby and whereunder the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 has prohibited the employment of contract labour in the job/work of raising and tracking of iron ore in the establishment of Manoharpur Mines of Steel Authority of India Limited, Chiriya, District-Singhbhum-West, Bihar with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette; and (ii) Minutes and the decision of the 42nd meeting of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CADLB) held on 12-13th December 2002 as contained in item No. 22 whereby and whereunder the Board had decided taking into consideration the judgment in the L.P.A. No. 111 of 2002 that nothing new has to be done in the case rather there was an error in the language of the earlier notification and left the matter to the Government for rectifying the notification; holding them to have been passed illegally and adversely affecting the interest of the petitioner;

ii) For issuance of a further writ/order/direction from this Hon'ble Court commanding upon the concerned respondents to forbear them from giving effect to acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the Notification No. S.O. 664E dated 09.06.2003.

2. The petitioner in the instant case is Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. which is a Central Government Public Undertaking under the Ministry of Steel and is also a Estate within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case the relief claimed is a challenge to the Notification issued by the Government of India in exercise of its power conferred Under Section 10(1) & (2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 vide which the employment of contract labour has been prohibited.

3. Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Notification issued by the Central Government is in the teeth of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench while referring to and relying upon the : (2001)IILLJ1087SC (Steel Authority Of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.) held that the appropriate Government has not complied with the statutory and mandatory requirement as provided under Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970.

4. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the impugned Notification subsequently issued vide Agenda Item No. 22 reiterates its earlier Notification by making a statement that the requirement of Section 10(2) was duly considered by the Board before making their recommendation and the error, if any, is in the language of the Notification issued by the Government.

5. In the light of the aforesaid observation it is rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was total non-application of mind and rather it was reiteration of the earlier order/notification which was quashed and thus there is no compliance of the statutory mandatory requirement as provided in Clauses (a) to (d).

6. Be that as it may, it is also relevant to refer the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters relating to disputes between Public Sector Central Government undertakings and Union of India. The first case was of O.N.G.C., a Public Sector undertaking in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in issued a direction to set up a High Powered Committee with an object that the litigation or dispute between the Central Government and its undertaking should not come to Court without availing of the opportunity of conciliation before In house Committee. In the said judgment (Supra) it was also directed that even matters pending before Courts and Tribunals should be referred to the High Powered Committee for its deliberation and detailed instructions were issued in this regard.

7. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : 1994(70)ELT45(SC) (Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise) while clarifying the O.N.G.C. case (Supra) at paragraph 5 held as under:

5. It is also clarified that even the pending matters before any court or tribunal should also be the subject-matter of the deliberations of the High-Powered Committee. All the matters pending as of today either instituted by the Union of India or any of the public sector undertakings shall within one month from today be referred by the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be, to the High-Powered Committee. The High-Powered Committee will deal with these matters most expeditiously and endeavour to resolve the matters.

8. It is further relevant to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to and relying upon the judgment (supra) further clarified and held as under:

8. ...It is only after such reference to the High-Powered Committee is made in the manner indicated that the operation of the order or proceedings under challenge shall be suspended till the High-Powered Committee resolves the dispute or gives clearance to the litigation.

9. The aforesaid view was again reiterated in : (2009)1SCC497 (Rajkamal Builders v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors.) and at paragraph 10 it has been hold that the dispute should be sorted out between them by mutual negotiations or through the High Powered Committee, before the issued is considered by the court.

10. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements time and again, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to approach the High Powered Committee in the light of the decision and directions issued from time to time by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. It is further relevant to direct that the Notification dated 9.06.2003 in question shall be kept in abeyance and or be suspended during the pendency of reference to the High Powered Committee for resolution of the dispute.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and the direction as issued this writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the High Powered Committed to take a decision preferably within a period of six months from the date of reference of the dispute.