Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Government Press General ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 July, 2013
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.07.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.1338 of 2010 Tamil Nadu Government Press General Workers Union (Reg. No.1324/MDS), Rep. By its General Secretary, 1/10, 11th Street, Karunanithi Nagar, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023. .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Religious Endowment And Information Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 2. The Director, Office of the Director of Stationery and Printing, 110, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and papers relating to the impugned Tender Notification issued and published in Tamil Nadu Pension Rules Govt. Official Web Site "www.tenders.tn.gov.in" dated 06.01.2010 by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same in so far as providing services in binding operations in Stationery and Printing Department is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Additional Government Pleader ORDER
The Petitioner/Tamil Nadu Government Press General Workers Union has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records and papers pertaining to the impugned Tender Notification issued and published in Tamil Nadu Government Official Web Site "www.tenders.tn.gov.in" dated 06.01.2010 by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same in so far as providing services in binding operations in Stationery and Printing Department is concerned.
Comprehensive Factual Background:
2.The Petitioner/Union represents 550 employees working in the 2nd Respondent/Office of the Director of Stationery and Printing, Chennai. According to the Petitioner, on earlier occasion G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 08.12.1993 of the Information and Tourism (S&P II) Department was issued in regard to the modernisation of the Government Press, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1997 of 1993 and the same was stayed pending disposal of the Writ Petition. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Government withdrew the G.O. with liberty to issue a fresh one.
3.The Government by G.O. (Standing) No.269 dated 05.11.2006 of the Information and Tourism (A.A.2) Department passed an order stating that an 'Exerts Committee' would be formed to submit its recommendation on the issue of modernisation of the Government Press.
4.The G.O. (Standing) No.285 dated 05.12.2006 of the Information and Tourism Department was issued in regard to the filling up of 333 posts in 19 categories, ranging from Web Offset Technician to General Foreman Offset Co-ordination. Further, the G.O. mentioned that adhoc rules will have to be framed and sent to the Government for approval. But the said G.O. has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.15406 of 2007.
5.The Government Press has 177 years History. In the year 2009 Budget Session in the State Assembly, the Hon'ble Minister for Tamil Development, Religious Endowment and Information Department submitted a Government Policy Note for the year 2009-2010 wherein it was mentioned that it was decided to outsource cleaning, maintenance and security works. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent started outsourcing the cleaning, maintenance and security works to the Private agency. The said Policy Note of the Government had not stated anything about outsourcing Binding Department works. Binding work is the major part of work in all Government Presses in Tamil Nadu. In the Government Presses in Tamil Nadu, the sanctioned post of Junior Binder as of the year 2000 is 1069. However, as on date, the Junior Binder in all the Government Presses is only about 200. The vacancies caused due to retirement, death, resignation were not filled up. The Government Press Management in order to get the work done in Binding Department recruited 300 Apprentices who are qualified ITI Diploma Holders. After completing the Apprenticeship training, the said 300 and odd Apprentices have registered their names in the Office of the 2nd Respondent for permanent employment, apart from the Employment Exchange.
6.Further, Mazdoors are entitled to be promoted as Junior Binder. At present, there are about 70 Mazdoors working in the Government Central Press, Mint, Chennai who are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Binder. Likewise, in other branches also Mazdoors are working who are all eligible to be considered for promotion as Junior Binder.
Petitioner's Contentions:
7.There is no Government Order for outsourcing Binding works in the Government Presses. As a matter of fact, the Policy Note 2009-2010 presented before the State Assembly in page 19 talks about G.O.'s for outsourcing maintenance, sanitary, security works alone. He does not speak about outsourcing Binding works in Government Presses, which is a core job. When the Government has not taken any Policy decision to outsource Binding works in the Government Presses, then, the 2nd Respondent has no power, authority or competence to call for tender in respect of Binding Works in Government Presses.
8.Out of 1358 Non-Ministerial workers, Binding Department has approximately 300 workers and this is the largest contingent in the Government Press. As against the sanctioned strength of 1069, the present strength of Junior Binders is about 300. As such, without filling up the posts, the 2nd Respondent cannot outsource the Binding Works. More than 100 compassionate appointments are to be filled up. Most of the wards of the deceased workmen are fully qualified to hold the post of Junior Binder. In the last 5 years, nearly 300 Apprentices had undergone training in the Government Press and registered their names for employment.
9.The Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India provides for preference to be given to the Apprentices when vacancies are filled. When there are vacancies, the 2nd Respondent instead of filling up the vacancies is now endeavouring to outsource the Binding Works by denying the employment prospects of the existing Mazdoors, Apprentices and the wards of the deceased workmen.
10.The Budget top secret work is being done in the Government Press especially in the Binding Department. If outsourcing is done, then, the secrecy will be lost. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the Government also not to outsource the Binding Work, which is a perennial nature of work.
11.By resorting to outsourcing, the 2nd Respondent is indulging in Contract Labour System for perennial nature of work and this is being done without registering itself under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The Government Press is a factory as defined under the Factories Act, 1948 and it is also an 'industry' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Just because, the Government Press is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu , it cannot flout or by-pass the statutory provisions which require taking registering of the principal employer under the said Act.
Respondents' Submissions:
12.In response, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 submits that to cope up with the technological development in the field of printing technology the Government have constituted a committee vide G.O.No.285 I & T Department dated 05.12.2006 and that the Committee made an exhaustive enquiry and submitted a report. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that there was no report by the Expert Committee is not a tenable one.
13.The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents contends that it is the policy decision of the Government to engage personnel from outsourcing in any field where it considers that there is no impediment in its smooth functioning of its machinery etc. Therefore, the Government issued Letter in 387/S&P-1-2/2008-9 dated 21.12.2009 by according sanctioned to employ binders in the 2nd Respondent Establishment through outsourcing. Indeed, the Government accorded sanctioned to the 2nd Respondent to employ various posts in its office.
14.The 2nd Respondent took steps to fill up the post through Employment Exchange and on compassionate grounds as directed by the Government through their letter dated 21.12.2009. The Mazdoors working in the establishment of the 2nd Respondent get their promotion and promoted to various posts included in the Tamil Nadu Press Subordinate Service. One of the posts included in the said service is Binder. Also that, it is the stand of the Respondents that the Mazdoors got promoted to the post of Binder, provided they had sufficient knowledge in the field of binding. Trade tests are conducted for Mazdoors to ascertain their knowledge in the field of binding to induct in the said field. The Mazdoors who are qualified in the said trade test are being inducted as binder in the establishment of the 2nd Respondent.
15.The vital plea taken on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 is that the Petitioner has no locus standi to contend for the appointment of the apprentice and for the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant who are not a member of the Petitioner union. It is the prerogative of the Government to decide the issue of employment in their administration. Also that the secrecy of the Government is the sole concern of the Government and the Petitioner has no right to raise this issue.
16.It is contended on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Petitioner with a malafide intention and without exhausting the remedy hastily approached this Court to curb the activities of the 2nd Respondent, which are taken in good faith and with the authority of the Government.
17.Moreover, as per Section 4(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Respondent/Establishment does not fall within the norms prescribed thereunder. Therefore, the said Act is inapplicable to the 2nd Respondent because of the simple reason that it had not employed contract labour earlier. The 2nd Respondent, implementing the said policy of the Government, had issued Notification dated 06.01.2010 calling for the tenders to engage binders through outsourcing. By the said Notification, no rights of the Petitioner has been violated.
18.As per the rules in force preferential treatment will be given to the apprentice who have undergone apprenticeship training in the establishment of the 2nd Respondent, when they are sponsored by the Employment Exchange for being appointed as binder under direct recruitment.
19.In the year 2005, 49 Mazdoors were promoted to the post of binder for the 2nd Respondent. The issuance of Notification dated 06.01.2010 in respect of calling of tender for employing binders from outsourcing is not unfair Labour Practice under Section 25(T) and (U) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
20.Earlier, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.15406 of 2007 before this Court seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2nd Respondent from giving effect to G.O.(D).No.285 Information and Tourism (S & P.II) Department, dated 05.12.2006 issued by the First Respondent without framing the ad hoc rules and without drawing a seniority list of eligible senior employees for the said new posts.
21.On 20.04.2012 the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction being issued to the 1st Respondent/Government to frame adhoc rules within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and it was also made clear that the Respondents were directed not to fill up any posts for the said period from today, till adhoc rules are framed.
Glimpse of Case Laws:
22.At this stage, this Court recalls and recollect the following decisions to promote substantial cause of Justice:
(a) In the decision Y.Prabhakar Rao and others V. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Chennai and others, 2000 (3) L.L.N. 568, it is held that 'High Court in Writ Petitions cannot decide the nature of jobs which are prohibited under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970'.
(b)In the decision ONGC Labour Union and others V. Group General Manager (Project), O.N.G.C., 2002-III-L.L.J. 659 & 660, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as follows:
"Petitioners - workmen sought in this petition direction for their absorption in the regular service of the respondent-Corporation, and other reliefs. The High Court refused interim relief for maintenance of status quo as well as the direction aforesaid, on the ground that the issues involved in the petition required adjudication of disputed questions of fact by the appropriate forum. However with a view to enable the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum the ad-interim status quo earlier order was extended till June 30, 2002."
(c)In the decision of this Court in K.Ramakrishnan and others V. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, (represented by its Senior Installation Manager), Madras and others, 1997-2-L.L.N.1181 at special page 1192, in paragraphs 33 and 34, it is held as follows:
"33.It is not in dispute that the powers of the writ Court are unfettered. When it becomes a question of fact as to whether or not in a given case a contract is a sham or not, to decide that point, evidence may have to be let in by both parties, in an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. On the facts of the case, from the prayer in the writ petition and of the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on either side and on a perusal of the averments made by either party, it would be seen that the individuals in question were admittedly employed by the contractor Palani, who passed away a few weeks before the judgment was delivered in the writ petition. When the contract was subsisting, employment of the contract labour depended upon day-to-day exigencies and requirements of loading and unloading and on some days all the contract labour would be engaged and on some other days, only a few and on some other days none at all. In fact, orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petition, that the contract labour should be provided work by contractors, whose names were spelt out in the order itself made by the High Court depending upon exigencies. Eventually, all the contractors except Palani does not renew their contracts and by variate of the interim orders of the High Court, the contract labour of Palani were engaged according to exigencies. Upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dissolved and now, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, new contractors are in the picture engaging their own workmen for loading and unloading operations.
34.For all the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal fails, however, with liberty to the contract labour to raise an industrial dispute if they so desire or choose."
(d)In the decision Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V. K.V.Shramik Sangh and others, 2002 (3) L.L.N. 29, it is observed as follows:
"The union of workmen in the writ petition, alleged that the labour contract was a sham and the Corporation specifically denied it but the High Court did not go into this question and did not record a finding that the labour contract in the present case was a sham or a camouflage considering the material on record. Even otherwise, this being a serious and disputed fact the High Court could not have appropriately adjudicated on the issue exercising jurisdiction under Art.226. The High Court proceeded to conclude that the labour contract was not genuine and the workers of the union were employees of the Corporation because the Corporation and the contractors had not complied with the provisions of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. A conclusion that the contract was a sham or it was only a camouflage cannot be arrived at as a matter of law for non-compliance with the provisions of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act but a finding must be recorded based on evidence, particularly when disputed, by an Industrial Adjudicator.
The material referred to in the impugned order relates to the complaints of the union, recommendations of the Labour Commissioner, Labour Minister and the Labour Contract Advisory Board in regard to abolition of contract labour under S.10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act but that material could not be a foundation or/basis to say that the labour contract was a sham, a camouflage or devised to deny the statutory benefits to the workers. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court that the contract labour system in the present case was a sham, cannot be sustained, particularly when the disputed questions of fact arose for consideration in the light of rival contentions raised by the parties."
(e)In the decision Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Karnataka Operations, Industrial Area, Doddabalapur (represented by Pradeep Kapoor, Vice-President) V. 1.State of Karnataka (represented by Secretary, Department of Labour and Social Welfare), Bangalore (2)T.A.F.E. Employees Union, Chikkabommasandra, 2003 (3) L.L.N. 1110, at special pages 1114 & 1115 in paragraphs 7 & 10, it is held and observed as follows:
"7.The Primary object of the Act is to stop exploitation of contract labourers by contractors or establishments. The intention of the Act is not to abolish contract labour in its entirety, but only in appropriate cases. The decision regarding prohibition of employment of contract labour vests with the appropriate Government which should however consult the Advisory Board before taking a decision. Any decision taken in that behalf will be subject to judicial review. As Section 10 contemplates scrutiny of individual establishments for abolition/prohibition of a contract labour, a notification issued under Section 10 cannot be challenged on the ground of hostile discrimination and that contract labour had not been prohibited in other establishments.
10.Therefore, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act issued by the appropriate Government prohibiting employment of contract labour in any establishment will be valid only if it is issued: (a) after consultation with the Advisory Board; and (b) after considering the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment and other relevant factors, in particular those enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2). We will now examine the facts of this case with reference to the said requirement of law.
Also, in the aforesaid decision at pages 1117 to 1119, in paragraphs 15, 18 to 20, it is observed and laid down as follows:
"15. The position is no better when the recommendation of the Advisory Board was received by the Government. The Government did not consider the matter with reference to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment of petitioner. Nor did it consider the matter with reference to any relevant factors including those enumerated in Section 10(2) of the Act. On the other hand, a note was put up merely referring to the recommendation of the Advisory Board and proposing that a draft notification be issued, calling for objections. But, strangely, neither a draft notification was issued nor opportunity was given to the employer or contractor or workmen to file their objections. On the other hand, purporting to act on the advice tendered by the Advocate General that objections need not be invited and the Government can straightaway issue a final notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, the final notification was issued on March 27, 1997. Thus, there is neither consideration nor application of mind by the State Government to any relevant aspect, let alone the aspects referred to in Section 10(2) before taking a decision to prohibit employment of contract labour in the petitioner's establishment. What is surprising is that Advisory Board also did not hold any enquiry or investigation or give opportunity to affected parties to have their say in the matter. Therefore having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India (supra) and L & T McNeil (supra), the notification dated March 27, 1997 has to be declared invalid and quashed.
18. The respondents lastly submitted that another recommendation made by the Advisory Board, in its proceedings dated December 10, 1996, with reference to 'Industrial Canteen in the Factories where more than 250 workers are employed' had been accepted by the Government by issuing a notification dated April 11, 1997 under Section 10(1) of the Act and that notification has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Larson & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 14263/1997 and connected cases decided on March 30, 1998) which in turn has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Barat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. State of Karnataka AIR 2001 SC 781 : 2001-I-LLJ-763. It is submitted that in view of that decision, the validity of the notification dated March 27, 1997 relating to petitioner should also be upheld. But, the facts relating to the notification dated April 11, 1997 prohibiting employment of contract labour in industrial canteens and factories, employing 250 workers or above, considered in Barat Fritz Werner are completely different. In that case the Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the employer that prohibition of contract labour is contemplated only in respect of operations which are activities closely and directly connected with the main activity of the factory or establishment, and not in regard to activities which are not integral to the work of the establishment. This Court and the Supreme Court examined the records and found that the Advisory Board had taken a decision to recommend abolition of contract labour only after giving due opportunity to the employer to make representations and file objections and by securing reports from different districts and information from labour department and others concerned; and that the Government also took note, in detail, of not only the report of the Advisory Board but also various factors mentioned in Section 10(2), that is conditions of works, the benefits provided to the contract labour in the establishment, need for such activity, whether it was perennial in nature or otherwise, whether such activity was carried on ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or similar establishments, and whether the work was sufficient to employ number of whole-time workmen, before reaching a decision. It is in those circumstances, the Supreme Court and this Court, came to the conclusion that Section 10(2) was fully complied with and consequently upheld the validity of the notification issued under Section 10(2).
19. Before parting, it is necessary to refer to the following decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
(i) Vegoils Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen wherein the Supreme Court held that employment of contract labour in regard to the work of loading and unloading was permissible where the facts showed drastic variation in the nature of work to be done by the contractor and also showed that other similar establishments also got done such work through contract labour.
(ii) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 2000-I-LLJ-948 wherein the Gujarat High Court quashed the Notification under Section 10(2) prohibiting employment of contract labour in regard to security work, where Government failed to consider the question whether such work is done through regular workmen in other similar establishments.
As we have already held that the notification is liable to be quashed for non consideration of relevant factors as per Section 10(2), it is not necessary to consider these decisions further.
20. In the result, we allow this petition and consequently the notification dated March 27, 1997 is quashed. However, it is open to the State Government to examine the matter afresh in accordance with law."
Analysis and Findings:
23.At this juncture, it is to be noted that the term 'Outsourcing' is defined by "Concise Oxford English Dictionary Indian Edition" (11th Edition Revised (2008) published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi at page 1017 as under:
"Outsourcing-obtain by contract from an outside supplier."
24.The main aim of 'Outsourcing' is the process of contracting a job war function to some other person. No wonder, it is just opposite to 'Insourcing'. Ordinarily, 'Outsourcing' is resorted in regard to 'non-core to the business'. To put it differently, 'Outsourcing' is entering into a contract with other person/company to undertake the performance of a specified work. Also that, 'Outsourcing is the use of extraneous business relationship to fulfil necessary business activities and processes instead of internal capabilities. The persons who provide the 'Outsourcing' facilities are described as Outsourcing Partners, Outsourcing Suppliers and Providers. Those who go to purchase Outsourcing services are described as "Buyer" and "Users" in ordinary language. Indeed, in Outsourcing work, the Buyer generally does not issue instructions to the Supplier how to turn out its work. However, the Buyer concentrates on communicating what results it desirous to purchase/buy. The Supplier is to produce the results in regard to the work that he is entrusted to perform.
25.The word 'Recruitment' and the term 'Appointment' have come up for consideration in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain V. Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 181 wherein it is observed hereunder:
"The term "recruitment" connotes and signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradiction thereto the word "appointment" means the actual act of posting a person to a particular office."
26.The expression "Conditions of Service" covers within its ambit everything from the stage of appointment to the stage of termination of service and even beyond including the issue relating to disciplinary matters.
27.The term 'Conditions of Service' ought to mean all the conditions on which a man serves and they must include inter alia the tenure of his service, the method by which he may be dismissed or reduced in rank etc. as per the decision of Privy Council, North West Frontier Province V. Suraj Narain Anand, Vol. LXXV Indian Appeals 343.
28.An organisation which desirous to go for 'outsourcing' will take into consideration like, the cost of savings, focus on main business, cost restructuring, improvement of quality, reducing time period relating to a turnout of a finished product supply, reducing liability and revenue etc.
29.In 'Insourcing', there is a control, compliance, making an endeavour to attain the development of shared services by means of vertical integration. Whereas, in 'Outsourcing' there is an entire commercial activity in respect of which the service provider as an predominant control and supervisory coupled with an exercise of managerial discretion.
30.It is to be borne in mind that 'Outsourcing' is not a matter recruitment as per rules and regulations. The 'Outsourcing', in the present case on hand before this Court, is nothing but a method of supply of work force through an individual contractor or service provider or labour supplier. In effect, it results in introduction of a 'Middle Man' for providing services in binding operations in the Stationery and Printing Department at the Branch Presses in Chennai and Mofussil. Undoubtedly, for the contractual arrangement for a period of one year for entrusting the services in binding operations in the Stationery and Printing Department at the Government Presses in Chennai and Mofussil, the monetary amounts would be disbursed, which in turn, may not same the cost.
31.In the instant case on hand, the Tender for Providing Services in Binding Operations in Stationery and Printing Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Director of Stationery and Printing, Chennai 2 bearing Dte.No.B2/70853/2009 dated 06.01.2010, in paragraph 6, deals with the 'Description of the Work', which runs thus:
"6)DESCRIPTIN OF THE WORK:
It has been decided to have a contractual arrangement for a period of one year for entrusting the services in binding operations in the Stationery and Printing Department at its Presses in Chennai and Mufussil as detailed below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl.No. Name of the Branch No of Persons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Govt. Central Press, Chennai-79 36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Govt. Branch Press, High Court, Ch 104. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Govt. Branch Press, Trichy. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Govt. Branch Press, Salem. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Govt. Branch Press, Vridhachalam. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Govt. Branch Press, Pudukottai. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Govt. Branch Press, Madurai. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of personnel required is subject to increase / decrease. After the end of the stipulated period, the Director of Stationery and Printing will review the position and either renew the contract or resort to open tender again or stop the engagement of an outside agency for the work."
Paragraph 7 speaks of '(xix) Duties and Responsibilities' are made mention of.
32.It is to be remembered that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is a self-contained code by itself, as opined by this Court.
33.It is to be pointed out that if a dispute assumes the character of an industrial dispute, it is not sufficient if a substantial number of workmen of the concern are on the rolls of the union; in fact, they should have also supported the dispute, as per the decision Nellai Cotton Mills, Tirunelveli V. Labour Court, Madurai and another, 1965 (1) LLJ 95. Also that, when a registered trade union of workmen of the concern industry raises an industrial dispute, it cannot be said that there is no valid espousal on the basis that it was not a recognised union.
34.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court taking note of the fact that the policy decision of the Government in regard to the employment of persons from various sources including through 'Outsourcing' as per the Tender Notice issued in Dte.No.B2/70853/2009 dated 06.01.2010 and in view of the categorical stand taken by the 2nd Respondent that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is not applicable and further that it has not employed contract labour at the earlier point of time, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the matter, directs the Petitioner to approach the competent/fit forum, by raising an Industrial Dispute [seeking necessary reliefs if it so desires/advised] with liberty to raise all factual and legal pleas [including (i) Whether the Government Press is a 'Factory' as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948? (ii) Whether it is an 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? (iii)Whether the Government Press is a 'Principle Employer' in terms of Section 2(g)(i) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?] in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Moreover, there is no impediment on the part of the Petitioner/Union to approach the State Advisory Board as per Section 4 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for seeking redressal of its grievance in the subject matter in issue. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot decide the disputed factual aspects of introduction of purported contract labour system in respect of binding works in Government Press under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because these relate to letting in of oral and documentary evidence by the concerned parties as they deem fit and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on the surface. Looking at from that angle, the Writ Petition fails.
35.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sgl To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Religious Endowment And Information Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Director, Office of the Director of Stationery and Printing, 110, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002