Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 1, as and when PPT goes
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. As regards the plea of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, of the right of the Petitioners to get a job on a permanent basis in PPT, after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India…
Judgment
Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASG for Union of India Mr. Gautam Misra, Sr. Advocate for Opp. Party No.3 CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK Order No.
ORDER 21.02.2022 1. The challenge in the present petition is to a Notification dated 9th October 2018 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India exempting Paradip Port Trust (PPT) (Opposite Party No.3) from the applicability of a notification dated 4th July 2001 in respect of employment of contract labour in the works or jobs of iron ore muck cleaning and spillage removal work in the iron ore handling plant of PPT for a period of two years with effect from the date of publication of the notification.
Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the PPT at the outset points out that the aforementioned notification has now worked itself out as a two-year period has come to an end. He states that on that short ground the writ petition should be disposed of as having become infructuous.
The above submission has been opposed by Mr. Digambara Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners-Workmen, who insists that the services of the Petitioners placed at the disposal of the PPT have not been dispensed with and that they should be held to be continuing with PPT as their ‘Principal Employer’. It is pointed out that in the meanwhile a tender notice has been floated for engaging a private contractor and an attempt is being made to place the services of the Petitioners at the disposal of such private contractor.
The Court repeatedly asked Mr. Digambara Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners whether the Petitioners are unwilling to work with such private contractor and he has answered in the affirmative. The Court clarifies that the Petitioners are under no compulsion to work for any private contractor.
Operative part
As regards the plea of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, of the right of the Petitioners to get a job on a permanent basis in PPT, after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 1, as and when PPT goes in for recruitment on regular basis, preference will be given to the present Petitioners since they were working on contract labour basis earlier with PPT. Other prayers in the present petition can be sought to be redressed in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
6. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) S.K. Guin/S. Behera Judge (R. K. Pattanaik)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Orissa High Court, on 09 Oct 2018. The bench was R K PATTANAIK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.