{"id":248283,"date":"2007-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-24T20:20:21","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T14:50:21","slug":"rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2122 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nRashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd.& Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGeneral Employees Association & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 594 of 2004
\nWith<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2123 OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12961 of 2003)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
 Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a
\nDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court directing reference to
\nthe Industrial Tribunal and granting interim protection to the
\nworkers in the Civil Appeal relating to SLP(C ) No. 594 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
  First Respondent-General Employees Association (in short
\nthe ‘Association’) had questioned legality of the Circular  dated
\n8.11.2000 issued by the Central Government conveying its
\ndecision refusing to abolish and  prohibit contract labour in the
\nCivil Works and Carpentry establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals
\nand Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No.1, in W.P. No.7543\/2000.  It
\nwas alleged by the writ petitioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in
\nthe writ petition (who are non-official respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in
\nthis appeal) were dummy and sham contractors. It was conceded
\nby the writ petitioner that the said issue cannot be considered by
\nthe High Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) and the
\nappropriate forum – Industrial Tribunal has to go into such
\nquestion.  The writ petitioner requested that order may be made
\nreferring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal and meanwhile to
\nafford interim protection.  While accepting this prayer, the High
\nCourt, however, issued the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
“(i) \tThe appropriate Government, i.e., the Central
\nGovernment is directed to make a Reference of the
\nfollowing demands to the Industrial Court for
\nadjudication within two months from today;\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tWhether the contracts between the
\nIst  respondent M\/s. Rashtriya Chemicals
\nand Fertilizers Ltd. and respondent Nos.
\n5 to 10 are sham and bogus and are a
\ncomoufiage to deprive the concerned
\ncontract employees of the benefits
\navailable to permanent workmen of the 1
\nrespondent?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhether the employees listed at
\nExhibit A to the petition should be
\ndeclared as permanent workmen of the 1
\nrespondent?\n<\/p>\n
(c) \tWhat are the wages and
\nconsequential benefits to be paid to the
\nemployees list at Exhibit ‘A’ to the
\npetition?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) \tThe Industrial Tribunal upon receipt of such
\nReference shall proceed with the matter
\nexpeditiously and dispose of the same as early as
\npossible and in any case not later than 30.6.2004.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tThe interim order passed by this Court on
\n29.12.2000 shall continue until receipt of the
\ncommunication by the petitioner from the Industrial
\nTribunal that the Reference has been received and
\nfor a period of two months therefrom. The
\npetitioners shall be at liberty to make application
\nbefore the concerned Industrial Tribunal for
\ncontinuation of the interim relief upon receipt of the
\ncommunication that Reference has been received
\nand if such application is made by the  petitioner,
\nthe same shall be disposed of by the Industrial
\nTribunal within a period of four weeks therefrom.
\nNeedless to say that if for any reason the Industrial
\nTribunal is not able to dispose of the application for
\ninterim relief that may be made by the petitioner
\nwithin a period of four weeks from such application,
\nthe industrial Tribunal shall be free to pass an
\nappropriate order for continuation of the interim
\norder until disposal of the application for interim
\nrelief. In case interim order on the application is
\nadverse to the petitioners same shall not be given
\neffect to for a period f four weeks.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tIt is clarified that in case there is any change
\nin the Contractor by respondent no.1 the new
\nContractor shall engage the same workers subject to
\nthe order of the Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tIt is further clarified that the above interim
\norder is confined only to 39 employees who are
\npresently working on the establishment of
\nrespondent no.1 through respondent nos. 5 to 10.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tAll contentions of the parties are kept open to
\nbe agitated before the Industrial Tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
The connected Civil Appeal (relating to SLP(C) No.12961 of
\n2003) is in respect of workers in a canteen in the Thar factory of
\nthe Appellant No.1.  The first respondent-Union filed W.P.
\nNo.2940\/1998 for a declaration that the employees (whose names
\nwere shown in the Annexure to the writ petition) were the regular
\nemployees of Appellant No.1 and for consequential reliefs. A
\nDivision Bench of the High Court has given following directions
\nwhile disposing of the petition by judgment dated 23.1.2003:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The appropriate Government that is the
\nGovernment of Maharashtra is directed to make a
\nReference of the following dispute\/s to the
\nIndustrial Tribunal for adjudication within two
\nmonths from today.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Whether the contract between the
\nRashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.
\nand the contractor\/s is a sham and
\nbogus one and is a camouflage to deprive
\nthe employees as per Annexure A of the
\nbenefits available to permanent workers
\nof Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers
\nLtd.?\n<\/p>\n
(b) Whether the employees whose names
\nare shown in Exhibit A annexed to this
\norder are employees in the Canteen of
\nRashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.
\nand if the answer is in the affirmative,
\nwhether such employees should be
\ndeclared as permanent workmen of
\nRashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.?\n<\/p>\n
(c) What are the wages and consequential
\nbenefits to be paid to the employees as
\nper the list Annexure A?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The Industrial Tribunal upon receipt of the
\nReference shall proceed with the matter
\nexpeditiously and dispose of the same as early as
\npossible and in no case later than 3 1. 12. 2003.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The interim order passed by this Court on
\n24.6.1998 shall continue until receipt of the
\ncommunication by the Petitioners from the
\nIndustrial Tribunal that Reference has been
\nreceived and for a period of two months therefrom.
\nThe Petitioner shall be at liberty to make application
\nbefore the concerned Industrial Tribunal for
\ncontinuation of the interim relief upon receipt of the
\ncommunication that Reference has been received
\nand we observe that if such application is made by
\nthe Petitioner, the same shall be disposed of by the
\nIndustrial Tribunal within a period of four weeks
\ntherefrom. We record the statement of the learned
\nSenior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that no
\nobjection shall be raised by the said respondents
\nabout the maintainability of the application for
\ninterim relief by the petitioner. Needless to say if for
\nany reason, the Industrial Tribunal is not able to
\ndispose of the application for interim relief that may
\nbe made by the petitioner within a period of four
\nweeks from such application, the Industrial
\nTribunal shall be free to pass an appropriate order
\nfor continuation of the interim order until disposal
\nof the application for interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) It is clarified that in case there is any change in
\nthe Contractor by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the
\nnew Contractor shall engage the same workers
\nsubject to the order of the Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open to be
\nagitated before the Industrial Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after the
\ndecision of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others v.
\nNational Union Waterfront Workers and Ors<\/a>. (2001(7) SCC 1) the
\nHigh Court ought not to have given directions in the manner done.
\nThe prayer in the writ petitions was not for determination of the
\nquestion whether the contract labour system was genuine, or was
\na mere camouflage to deprive the concerned contract employees of
\nthe benefits available to permanent employees of appellant No.1.
\nThe High Court in both the orders even formulated the terms of
\nreference which is impermissible.\n<\/p>\n
 There is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent –
\nAssociation in spite of service of notice.\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant, it is
\nnecessary to take note of the observations made by this Court in
\nseveral cases.  In the Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. and Another v. Hind
\nMazdoor Sabha and Others<\/a> [1976(1) SCC 60] while considering
\nSection 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( in short ‘UP
\nAct), in pari materia with Section 10(1)<\/a> of Industrial Disputes Act,
\n1947 (in short ‘ID Act<\/a>‘) it was observed inter alia as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“In the special appeal the High Court has taken the
\nview following the decision of this Court in State of
\nU. P. v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd<\/a>. that when action
\nwas taken under Section 3(b)<\/a> of the Act it was
\nobligatory for the State Government to make a
\nreference under Section 4K<\/a> for adjudication of the
\nindustrial dispute raised in relation to the said
\naction.  The High Court on a consideration of the
\nentire facts and circumstances of the case allowed
\nthe writ petition and quashed the order of the State
\nGovernment dated June 22, 1966 by grant of a writ
\nof certiorari. In this appeal since the special leave
\nwas granted on a limited question we are not called
\nupon to interfere with the said portion of the order
\nof the High Court. But it further directed the State
\nGovernment and the Labour Commissioner to refer
\nthe dispute for adjudication in exercise of their
\npower under Section 4K<\/a> of the Act. It seems to have
\nbeen so done on the view that it was obligatory for
\nthe State Government to do so after the issuance of
\nthe notification under Section 3(b)<\/a> of the Act. In our
\nopinion this was not correct.\n<\/p>\n
 In the judgment of this Court delivered a few days
\nago, M Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. Gorakhpore V. Shri
\nShibban Lal Saxena<\/a>  (judgment dated July 30,
\n1975), it has been held on a consideration of the
\nprovisions of law contained in Section 4K<\/a> of the Act
\nthat after quashing the order of the. Government
\nrefusing to make a reference the High Court could
\nask the Government to reconsider the matter but it
\ncould not give peremptory directions to make a
\nreference. We may, however, take note of a sentence
\noccurring in the judgment of this Court the case of
\nBombay Union of Journalists (supra) at page 35
\nwhich reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“if the appropriate Government refuse to
\nmake a reference for irrelevant
\nconsiderations, or on extraneous
\ngrounds, or acts mala fide, that, of
\ncourse, would be another matter; in such
\na case a party would be entitled to move
\nCourt for a writ of mandamus.”\n<\/p>\n
We think what was meant to be conveyed by the
\nsentence aforesaid was that the party would be
\nentitled to move the High Court for interfering with
\nthe order of the Government and not necessarily for
\nthe issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the
\nGovernment to make reference. The mandamus
\nwould be to reconsider the matter. It does not seem
\nto be quite reasonable to take the view that after the
\nrefusal of the Government to make a reference is
\nquashed a writ of mandamus to make a reference
\nmust necessarily follow. The matter has still to be
\nleft for the exercise of the power by the Government
\non relevant considerations in the light of the
\njudgment quashing the order of refusal”\n<\/p>\n
It is now well settled that High Courts will not straightway
\ndirect the appropriate government to refer the dispute.  It is for the
\nappropriate government to apply its mind to relevant factors and
\nsatisfy itself as to the existence of a dispute before deciding to refer
\nthe dispute.  We may refer to the following observations of this
\nCourt in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
\n[(Second SAIL Case) (2006(3) CLR 659)]:\n<\/p>\n
“For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under
\nSection 10<\/a> of the 1970 Act, the appropriate
\ngovernment is required to apply its mind. Its order
\nmay be an administrative one but the same would
\nnot be beyond the pale of judicial review. It must,
\ntherefore, apply its mind before making a reference
\non the basis of the materials placed before it by the
\nworkmen and\/or management, as the case may be.
\nWhile doing so, it may be inappropriate for the same
\nauthority on the basis of the materials that a
\nnotification under Section 10(1)(d)<\/a> of the 1947 Act
\nbe issued, although it stands judicially determined
\nthat the workmen were employed by the contractor.
\nThe state exercises administrative power both in
\nrelation to abolition of contract labour in terms of
\nsection 10<\/a> of the 1970 Act as also in relation to
\nmaking a reference for industrial adjudication to
\nlabour court or a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d)<\/a> of
\nthe 1947 Act. While issuing a notification under the
\n1970 Act, the State would have to proceed on the
\nbasis that the principal employer had appointed
\ncontractors and such appointments are valid in law,
\nbut while referring a dispute for industrial
\nadjudication, validity of appointment of the
\ncontractor would itself be an issue as the state must
\nprima facie satisfy itself that there exists a dispute
\nas to whether the workmen are in fact not employed
\nby the contractor but by the management. We are,
\ntherefore, with respect, unable to agree with the
\nopinion of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
We would, however, hasten to add that this
\njudgment shall not come in the way of the
\nappropriate government to apply its mind for the
\npurpose of issuance of a notification under Section
\n10<\/a> of the 1970 Act.”\n<\/p>\n
The exception to the above is, when the Court finds that the
\nappropriate government refuses to make a reference of a dispute is
\nunjustified.  In such circumstances, the court may direct the
\ngovernment to make a reference Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar
\nMunnetra Sangam, Tamil Nadu v. Government of Tamil Nadu<\/a> and
\nAnr. (1983 (1) SCC 304),  V. Veerarajan and Ors. v. Government of
\nTamil and Ors. (1987 (1) SCC 479 and TELCO Convoy Drivers
\nMazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors<\/a>. (1989 (3) SCC\n<\/p>\n
271).\n<\/p>\n
The Circular dated 8.11.2000 of the Central Government
\nwhich was the subject matter of challenge in the first matter is
\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n
“I am directed to invite your kind
\nattention to the above cited subject and to say
\nthat the matter relating to the prohibition of
\nemployment of contract labour in the
\nestablishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and
\nFertilizers Ltd., in their plants at Chembur,
\nMumbai and Thal District Raigad,
\nMaharashtra was discussed in the 44 Meeting
\nof the Central Advisory Contract Labour
\nBoardheld on 6-7th April, 2000 under the
\nChairmanship of Shri T.S. Shankaran. The
\nBoard made the following recommendations to
\nthe Government:\n<\/p>\n
“The Board observed that the
\nCommittee has examined in detail the
\nissue with respect to the factors set
\nout in Section 10<\/a> of the Act before
\ncoming too its conclusion. The Board,
\ntherefore, decided to accept the
\nrecommendations of the Committee
\nand recommended to the Government
\naccordingly”\n<\/p>\n
2. In pursuance of the recommendations
\nof the Board, the matter has been considered
\nin detail by the Central Government and it has
\nbeen decided not to prohibit employment of
\ncontract labour in the following work\/jobs in
\nthe establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and
\nFertilizers Ltd., in their plants at Chembur,
\nMumbai and Thal District Raigad,
\nMaharashtra for which the appropriate
\ngovernment, under the Contract Labour
\n(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is the
\nCentral Government:\n<\/p>\n
1) Cleaning of Roads, Storm drains, Yards
\nand Grass cutting.\n<\/p>\n
2) Dosing of Chemicals.\n<\/p>\n
3) Jobs in Canteen.\n<\/p>\n
4) Maintenance of Railway Track in the
\nPlant.\n<\/p>\n
5) Material handling and<\/p>\n
6) Civil Engineering maintenance i.e., in
\nthe jobs of carpentry, masonry, repairs to
\nelectrical switchgear and equipment such as
\npumps, cutters, maintenance operators,
\nmaintenance helpers, Assistants in Civil work,
\noperators and general workers.\n<\/p>\n
3. As the question of interpretation of the
\nterm “establishments” and applicability of the
\nAct to township is pending before the
\nConstitution Bench of the Supreme Court and
\ntheir ruling is awaited, it has been decided not
\nto prohibit the employment of contract labour
\nin the job of Security Guards covered by the
\nMaharashtra Private Security Guards
\n(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act<\/a>,
\n1981, deployed in the colonies, at present.\n<\/p>\n
4. A notification prohibiting employment
\nof contract labour in some other jobs\/works in
\nthe establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and
\nFertilizers Limited, in their plants at Chembur,
\nMumbai Priyadarshini Complex and Thal
\nDistrict Raigad, Maharashtra is being issued
\nseparately in consultation with the Ministry of
\nLaw, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative
\nDeportment).\n<\/p>\n
5. The employment of contract labour in
\nthe loading and unloading jobs being done by
\nthe Hathadi Workers are being referred back to
\nthe Board for their elucidation.”\n<\/p>\n
As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants
\nonce the respondent No.1-Association approached the High Court
\non the foundation that the Contract Labour (Regulation and
\nAbolition) Act,1970 (in short the ‘Act’) applied,  it pre supposes
\nexistence of a valid contract.  What the writ petitioner (respondent
\nNo.1 herein) wanted was quashment of Notification for
\nreconsideration.  In view of what has been stated in second SAIL
\ncase (supra) the High Court has to consider whether the stand
\ntaken in the writ petition was inconsistent.  In the instant case the
\nwrit petitioner itself accepted that certain issues could not be
\ndecided in the writ petition.  That being so, High Court giving
\ndirections in the nature done, do not appear to be appropriate.
\nWe are of the view that the High Court ought not to have given the
\ndirections in the manner done and should have left the respondent
\nNo.1-Association to avail remedy available in the I.D. Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
It is open to the respondent No.1-Association, if it is so
\nadvised, to move the appropriate State Government seeking
\nreference of the purported dispute to the Tribunal.  It is for the
\nState Government to consider whether any reference is called for.
\nWe make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
\ndesirability or otherwise of making reference.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals are allowed with no orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2122 of 2007 PETITIONER: Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd.& Anr. RESPONDENT: General Employees Association & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/2007 BENCH: Dr. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2929,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007"},"wordCount":2929,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007","name":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers ... vs General Employees Association & ... on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T14:50:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rashtriya-chem-fertilizers-vs-general-employees-association-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rashtriya Chem. & Fertilizers … vs General Employees Association & … on 23 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}