Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Food Corporation Of India Workers Union vs Ministry Of Labour & Employment ... on 31 October, 2014

Author: Suresh Kait

Bench: Suresh Kait

$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Judgment delivered on: 31st October, 2014

+                        W.P.(C) No.7428/2014

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr. Vikas
                                 Kumar and Mr. Manisal
                                 Paliwal, Advocates.

                         Versus

MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTED BY:
ITS SECRETARY & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC and
                                  Mr.    Naginder       Benipal,
                                  Advocate for Respondent
                                  Nos. 1 and 3.
                                  Mr.Om Prakash, Advocate
                                  for Respondent No.4.
CORAM:
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CM No.17623/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Union has assailed the letter dated 16.10.2014, whereby the Secretary ( CACLB), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, passed the order as under:-

"2. You may make yourself present on the aforesaid date and time or send a representative with authority letter before the Board to plead your case. Being a CACLB matter, it may be noted that no further adjournment will be granted and a decision will be taken ex-parte, if either party does not appear before the Board. If any party wishes to submit additional written submissions, if any, then only they are required to give 25 copies of the same at the time of the meeting for circulation among the members of the Board. Keeping in view the functional difficulties, it may not be possible to allow more than two (2) persons for each item. Kindly confirm the Name/Address and Telephone No. of the person who will attend the meeting. Your co-operation is also accordingly solicited."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Union while relying upon Section 31 of The Contract Labour (Regular and Abolition) Act, 1970, submits that the process initiated by the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned Section and even the present notice has been issued in contravention of Section 31 of the said Act.

3. Perusal of the said letter reveals that all the concerned including the petitioner Union were given liberty to be present on the date and time or send their representatives with authority letter before the Board to plead their case. It is further stated that if any party wishes to submit additional written statement, if any, they are required to give 25 copies of the same at the time of Meeting for circulation among the members of the Board.

4. As informed, Meeting was fixed for today at Kolkata and it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance notice, the representatives of the petitioner Union participated in the said Meeting. Accordingly, decision taken by the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioner Union.

5. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that the Minutes of the Board Meeting shall be sent to all the concerned parties and thereafter to the appropriate Department of the Central Government and only thereafter, the appropriate Government will take decision on the recommendations of the Advisory Board. Therefore, the present petition is filed prematurely.

6. Since the respondents authorities have not taken the final decision, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition has been filed pre- maturely.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to challenge the decision, taken by the Central Government, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved.

With the dismissal of the instant petition, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) OCTOBER 31, 2014 sb W.P. (C) 7428/2014 Page 3 of 3