IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1003 of 2025 ----- 1.Subhashis Choudhary, S/o Late Sunil baran Choudhury 2.Shankar Mallick, S/o Late Rama Prasad Mallick 3.Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shri Kant Singh 4.Suman Kumar, S/o Late B.P. Singh 5.Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Sriniwash Singh 6.Lal Bikash Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Sureshwar Nath Shahdeo 7.Johan Tigga, S/o Basant Tigga 8.Srijan Kumar Rakshit, S/o Late S.N. Rakshit 9.Pushpen Roy, S/o Late Pronab Kumar Roy 10.Ranthu Lohra, S/o Late Chhedi Lohra 11.Kamal Marik, S/o Late Sachindra Nath Marik 12.Shashi Bhushan Prasad, S/o Late Mahavir Prasad ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The Union of India 2.The Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Office at Room No.155, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 3.The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), office at Shramev Jayate Bhawan, G-4 Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi 4.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HEC Ltd. (A Govt of India Enterprises), Plant Plaza Road, Dhurwa, Ranchi 5.The General Secretary, Hatia Project Workmen Union, A-II/129, Dhurwa, Dhurwa, Ranchi 6.The General Secretary, Hatia Kamgar Union, (ATAK), CD-542/3, Dhurwa, Ranchi 7.The General Secretary, HEC Ltd, Shramik Karamchari Union, B-3/437(T), Dhurwa, Ranchi 8.The President, Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU), B-44, Sector-II, Dhurwa, Ranchi ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-HEC : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate …...... 05 / 04.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners who are contract workers are praying for absorption/ regularization of their service in Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (HEC). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are working under the contractor for more than 22-25 years. The job which they are performing is perennial in nature, thus they need to be absorbed. 4. In this context and seeing the nature of the prayer and status of these petitioners, who claimed themselves to be the contract employees, I am of the view considering the judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others vs. National Union Waterfront workers and Others, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 that the petitioners should raise an industrial dispute. 5. In the aforesaid judgment at paras 125 and 126, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that these types of issue should be dealt with and decided by the industrial adjudicator as the question requires an inquiry to the disputed question of fact which cannot conveniently be done by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is necessary to quote para 126 of the aforesaid judgment:- “126. We have used the expression “industrial adjudicator” by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.” 6. In this case to decide the claim of the petitioners several factual aspects have to be gone into. Some of these factual aspects are whether the petitioners are working continuously for 22-25 years, whether the job which they are performing is perennial/permanent in nature or not., whether the contract is genuine or not and whether there is any prohibition notification or not. These factual aspects cannot be looked into by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution rather the same should be placed before an Industrial Adjudicator. 7. Thus, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Petitioners are directed to approach the appropriate forum. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.