01.09.2026 Item no. 08 Court no. 30 g.b. 266012 WPA 22386 of 2026 Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees Union & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Upendra Ray Ms. Kanchan Ray Ms. Sadia Zarreen Mr. Swadhin Chowdhury …..For the Petitioners Mr. Kishore Kr. Dutta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal ….For the Respondent 1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities not to engage any new contactor until and unless the dispute as raised by the petitioner's union pending under reference case No. 14 of 2026 which is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority immediately, otherwise the same shall cause serious detrimental to the rights of workers fighting for more than 30 years and other reliefs. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the following issues under reference dated 24.02.2026 are pending before the Tribunal: "1.Whether workmen engaged in Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited (FSNL) are entitled to absorption/regularisation under Durgapur Steel Plant (SAIL), and 2 2. Whether denial of wage parity and consequential benefits to FSNL workmen is illegal and unjustified. If yes, then what relief, if any, the concerned workmen are entitled to." 3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dutta appearing for the private respondent submits that on the self- same issue, an earlier writ application was moved before this Court being WPA 8138 of 2026 when this Court vide an order dated 08.04.2026 disposed of the writ application taking into consideration the same issue which is pending before the Tribunal. 4. The Court disposing of the writ application held as follows: “The petitioners herein by way of this writ application prays that the respondent authorities be restrained from finalizing any tender inviting appointment of contractor or contract workers, except the petitioners herein in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. Admittedly an industrial dispute by way of reference is pending before the C.G.I.T. between the parties in the present case. This Court at this stage is not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioners, as the same may hamper the regular functioning of the respondent establishment. If such a Memorandum of Agreement, as annexed to the writ application, exists between the parties, the respondents shall act in accordance with law.” 3 5. As such Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that the writ application is not maintainable. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are neither asking to stall the tender process nor disturb the functioning of the respondent/establishment. The petitioners’ sole prayer is that the respondent authorities shall proceed keeping in mind that a reference (which has not been challenged by any of the parties till date) is still pending adjudication by the Tribunal and that the respondent/establishment is bound by the final decision of the Tribunal in respect of the reference, more so, considering that the tender has been issued when the reference was under process. 7. Accordingly, considering the submissions made by the parties, the writ application is disposed of with the direction that the private respondent who has taken steps for issuing tender on 19.01.2026 shall proceed in accordance with law, keeping in mind that an order of reference bearing no. 1 (44)/2025/E dated 24.02.2026 is pending before the Tribunal and that the private respondent shall be bound as per law in respect of the award passed by the Tribunal in due course. 4 8. The writ application stands disposed of. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)