ORDER
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) A Rule do issue out and under seal of the Hon’ble High Courf asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding them thereby to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the Contractors’ labour seniority list upon mentioning his Provident Fund Account No. at Sl No. 219 and thereby pass, an order directing the respondents mostly Durgapur Project Ltd. Authorities to absorb the petitioner as per Government Order dated March 12, 1996 under Memo No.269-Power/ IV issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Power as per seniority of the petitioners, and thereby pass an order directing the Durgapur Project Ltd. Authorities to engage the petitioner as a Contract labourer as an ‘Electrician’ until and unless the petitioner is not being absorbed as a regular employee as per Government Order being Annexure ‘H’ of this application.”
2. The fact of the matter is as follows:
The petitioner was an employee of a Contractor working at Durgapur Project Ltd. (respondent No.7 herein), known as Lahiri Construction, It stands admitted that the petitioner had worked from December 7, 1984 to December 14, 1994. His name has been deleted from the muster roll with effect from December 15, 1994. The petitioner appears to have lodged a grievance before the District Magistrate, Burdwan and the matter at the instance of the District Magistrate was enquired into by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durgapur who allegedly found that such termination was illegal. It appears that in the meantime, the respondent No. 9 submitted a proposal before the State Government for the purpose of absorption of the Contractor’s labourers by a letter dated March 12, 1996 as contained in Annexure “H” to the writ application. The Joint Secretary of the State of West Bengal by a letter addressed to Managing Director, Durgapur Project Ltd. communicated the Government order and policy which is to the following effect:
“(1) 469 (Four hundred sixty nine) Contractor’s labourers my be absorbed strictly on seniority basis subject to their eligibility and suitability, against the same number of the sanctioned vacant posts against which the work now being managed by the Contractors’ labourers.
(2) No further Contractors’ labourers/casual worker/daily labourer shall be engaged against vacancies or otherwise, without specific approval of this Department.”
3. The petitioner contends that despite the fact that he had worked under the aforementioned Contractors Lahiri Construction for a period of more than 10 years, his service was illegally terminated and his case has not been considered for absorption in terms of the aforementioned policy decision dated March 12, 1996 as contained in Annexure “H” to the writ application.
4. The respondent on the other hand contends that after the petitioner’s service was terminated by his employer, he has been working in another place.
5. The question as to whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner depends on the aforementioned policy decision dated March 12, 1996. The said policy decision undoubtedly is prospective in nature. In terms of the aforementioned policy decision only 469 Contractor’s labourers could be absorbed strictly on seniority basis subject to the condition that the same number of posts are vacant.
6. As on March 12, 1996 the petitioner was not a Contractors’ labourer, he was not entitled to be considered for absorption in terms of the said policy decision. The question raised at the Bar to the effect that the termination of service of the petitioner by the aforementioned Lahiri Construction has been found illegal by the District Magistrate is of no moment. The said authority is not statutorily empowered to declare the termination of the petitioner’s services as invalid, inasmuch as, no power in that regard has been conferred on him in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law for the time being in force.
7. As the petitioner was not Contractors’ labourer on March 12, 1996, in the considered view of this Court the aforementioned policy decision of the State as contained in Annexure “H” to the writ application cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.
8. If the petitioner is aggrieved by termination by the erstwhile employer on and from February 15, 1994, he could have and/or can take recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the event the appropriate Tribunal/Labour Court finds that such termination is illegal and declared that he would be deemed to be continued in service, then his case for absorption may be considered by the concerned respondent No. 7.
9. It may be noticed that the word “absorption” has a definite connotation in terms of the provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no direct provision for absorption of the Contractors’ labourer in terms of the said Act. The principal employer is enjoined with certain statutory duties inter alia as contained in Section 21 of the said Act.
10. If a policy decision has been taken by the State and the respondent No. 7 to absorb Contractors’ labourers, the same must be given full effect which means that a person as on the date of adoption of the policy decision must remain as Contractors’ labourer. Keeping in view of the fact that the service of the petitioner had been terminated much prior to March 12, 1996, he cannot be said to be Contractors’ labourer on that date and thus the question of his absorption in terms of the said policy decision does not arise.
11. For the reason aforementioned, this writ application is dismissed.
12. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.