SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1229 of 2011. D/d. 13.2.2001.

Bhel - Appellant

Versus

Kamal Kar Matar and others - Respondents

A. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Section 1(4) - Constitution of India, Article 136 - Interim order of High Court - Interlocutory order issued during pendency of writ petition - Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere, except where such order is unsustainable on the face of it - In a labour dispute where High Court had directed payment of Rs. 1,500/- more per month to respondents, without examining whether provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 were applicable or not and whether relationship held on facts, interim order of High Court was unsustainable on the fact of it - Learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to our notice an order of this Court and submitted that under identical circumstances this Court has not interfered with, in special leave petition against a similar interlocutory order - Held that, but dismissal of SLP at the admission stage has no binding precedent.

[Para 2]

B. Precedent - Dismissal of SLP at admission on stage is not a binding precedent.

[Para ]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal by BHEL is against an interlocutory order of the Bombay High Court in the pending writ petition directing the payment of Rs 1500 per month more to the respondents, who are the employees of the contractor. The said respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for issuance of a mandamus to the present appellant to absorb them in service and regularise their services with effect from the date of joining. On a notice of motion being taken, the impugned direction has been given. Though, ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an interim order of the High Court passed during the pendency of a writ petition, but in the case in hand the impugned order on the face of it is unsustainable and without examining the question as to whether the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 at all apply or not, and that there exists any relationship of master and servant between BHEL and the respondent workers, who are admittedly the workers of the contractor, it was wholly unjustified on the part of the High Court to issue the impugned direction directing BHEL to pay an additional sum of Rs. 1500 per month to each of the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to our notice an order of this Court and submitted that under identical circumstances this Court has not interfered with, in special leave petition against a similar interlocutory order. But dismissal of SLP at the admission stage has no binding precedence. As we have stated earlier, the facts and circumstances of the present case compel us to interfere with the impugned order. We therefore set aside the impugned direction of the Bombay High Court and allow this appeal. The High Court, however, is requested to dispose of the pending writ petition at an early date.