2026:JHHC:1976 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.353 of 2026 ----- 1.Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav, S/o Banshidhar Yadav, R/o Madhuban Tilaibani, Near Fitter Plant, P.O.- Lodna, P.S. Tisra, Dist- Dhanbad 2.Ajay Paswan, S/o Sadanand Paswan, R/o Madhuban Baltanr, Near Samudayak Bhawan, P.O. Lodna, P.S. Tisra, Dist- Dhanbad .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short M/s BCCL) through its Chairman cum Managing Director having Headquarter at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist- Dhanbad 2.Director Personnel, BCCL Koya Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist Dhanbad 3.General Manager (P&IR) BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist Dhanbad 4.General Manager, Lodna Area Office No.X, BCCL, Lodna Area, P.O. Bhaga, P.S. Tisra, Dist- Dhanbad 5.Project Officer, NT/ ST Colliery, BCCL, Lodna Area, P.O. Khas Jeanagora, P.S. Tisra, Dist- Dhanbad 6.The Agent, NT/ST Colliery, BCCL, Lodna Area, PO Khas Jeanagora, P.S. Tisra, Dist Dhanbad … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishad Khan, Advocate For the Resp.-BCCL : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Praveen Tirkey, Advocate …...... 02/ 27.01.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are contract employee who are claiming for regularization since they are working for more than twenty years. 3. The issue has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 wherein at paragraph 126 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is barred from entertaining applications for regularization where the question of facts needs to be assessed. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is the “Industrial Adjudicator” who has to decide the issue of regularization after taking into consideration whether the contract is sham or not and whether there is prohibition under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. 4. Considering what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. (supra). I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 5. The petitioners, if so, advised may approach the Industrial Adjudicator for seeking relief is sought for in this writ petition. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27th January, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 28 /01/2026