Ct. No.4 D/L-2 11.04.2025 (Naba) M.A.T. 1557 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 (ASSIGNED) Rakesh Bhattacharya & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Pratik Majumdar, Mr. Soyal Halder, Mr. Abul Mullick Mr. Sharadindu Patra ...for the Appellants Mr. Ashoke Kr. Chakraborty, ld. ASG, Mr. Rivu Dutta ...for the Union of India Re: CAN 1 of 2024 1. CAN 1 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 2. The applicants have stated that the other writ petitioners of W.P.A. 22060 of 2023 proceeded to file the appeal without intimation to the present 05 (five) writ petitioners, even though they were parties to W.P.A. No. 22060 of 2023. Only after a coordinate Bench of this Court modified the order passed in W.P.A. 22060 of 2023; and the respondents took steps to comply with the order passed by the coordinate Bench, the present petitioners came to know of filing of M.A.T. No.215 of 2024 by the other writ petitioners. As soon as, they realised that the others have preferred an 2 appeal, the petitioners have approached this Court. In the process a delay of 211 (two hundred eleven) days has occurred. The delay is thus not due to lack of due diligence on the part of the present appellants. 3. We thus find sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. 4. CAN 1 of 2024 stands allowed. 5. The application for condonation of delay is thus disposed of. Since the learned counsel for the parties proceeded to make submissions on the merits of the appeal, we have considered the main appeal on merit. Re: M.A.T. 1557 of 2024 6. The petitioners earlier filed W.P.A. No. 22060 of 2023. They were claiming regularisation of their services on the basis of a report dated 13.09.2022 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 7. The Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petition: “9. In that view of the matter, this Court directs that the report dated September 13, 2022 (supra) of the ALC must be treated as a failure of conciliation proceedings and placed before the appropriate Government for a reference to be made to the concerned Industrial Tribunal for an adjudication in accordance with law.” 3 8. This order was assailed by the other writ petitioners in M.A.T. 215 of 2024. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to modify the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the following terms: “7. Under such circumstances, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge by requesting the Chairman, Railway Board, to constitute a committee within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order, who shall consider the grievances of the appellants along with the report prepared on 21st October, 2022 after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, who may be allowed to be represented by an Advocate, the Contractor and the Railway Department and dispose of the matter within a period of six weeks thereafter by a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Advocate representing the present appellants, within two weeks from the date of the said order. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction it is not necessary to decide the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. Parties shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps after the decision of the committee is communicated to the parties. 4 9. Since affidavits have not been exchanged, all allegations are deemed to have been denied. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal and the application are accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were parties to the writ petition and were left out while filing the M.A.T. 215 of 2024. Since the order dated 07.12.2023 passed in W.P.A. 22060 of 2023 was passed in a proceeding to which the petitioners were also a party, they claimed parity in the matter of consideration of their claim by a committee in terms of the order passed by the coordinate Bench in M.A.T. 215 of 2024. 10. The learned A.S.G. submits that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to direct regularisation of a contract labour. The report of the ALC does not vest any right in favour of the petitioners. The appropriate forum for such a relief would be before the fora under the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. After considering the rival submissions, we find that these issues may not arise in the present case. The coordinate Bench has not considered 5 the report of the ALC to be vesting any right in favour of the petitioners. It has also not given a positive direction for the appellants’ regularisation. The issue has been left to be considered by the committee as noted above. 12. We, therefore, do not find any reason to deprive the petitioners of such consideration as has been accorded to the other writ petitioners, when the petitioners were also writ petitioners in W.P.A. No. 22060 of 2023. 13. The Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of paragraphs 7 to 10 passed in M.A.T. No. 215 of 2024, extracted above with a necessary modification that in the instant case the reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner, or his advocate. 14. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. 15. CAN 2 of 2024 also stands disposed of accordingly. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)