The milestone judgment SAIL Vs National Union Water Front Workers and others (2001 LAB. I.C. 3656=2001 LLR 691 (SC) = 2002 (4) LLN 135 (SC)) is a pioneer to comprehend the problem on Contract Labor. This case was heard and chosen by the constitution seat of the Supreme Court containing the five judges. The concise beginning of the debate lays in engagement of 353 contract Labors in the stockyard of SAIL at Kolkata. The Union recorded a writ appeal to in High Court looking for course for retention of Contract Labor in the consistent foundation of SAIL in perspective of the disallowance notice dated fifteenth July 1989 by the Government of West Bengal. The Learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court permitted the Writ Petition recorded by the Union in view of the three seat judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs United Labor Union and Others (1997 (76) FLR 119 (SC) = 1997 (1) LLN 75 (SC) = 1997 LLR 305 (SC) ). The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the Writ claim documented by SAIL. Along these lines the issue went on bid to the Supreme Court.

Prior to this issue could be heard in the SC a two judge seat of the said Court in Food Corporation of India, Bombay V. Transport and Dock Workers Union (1999 (7) SCC 59 ) saw a contention of sentiments between various seats on two issues:

(i) The understanding of the articulation "fitting Government" in area 2(1) (an) of the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition ) Act 1970 (in short the CLRA Act)

(ii) Automatic retention of the Contract Labor in the foundation of the Principal Employer as an outcome of an abrogation warning issued under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA demonstration.

Their Lordships in the said case alluded the issue to a bigger Bench. The SAIL case (supra) alongside different cases identified with Contract Labor were likewise labeled and alluded to the bigger seat of five judges as a similar inquiry additionally emerges in them too.

Before the SAIL Judgment (Supra) no instance of the Supreme Court can be said to have set out the law on Contract Labor as difference has been seen in different judgments of the Supreme Court. The summit court in Dina Nath and others Vs National Fertilizers Ltd and Others (1992 (64) FLR 39 =1992 (II) LLJ 46 (SC)) had decided that the demonstration does not accommodate programmed ingestion by Principal endless supply of Contract Labor. A similar view was again resonated for the situation between R.K. Panda and Others Vs Steel Authority of India and Others (1994 (2) LLN 378 (SC) = 1994 (69 FLR 256 (SC)). A comparable view was likewise taken by the peak court in the Association of Chemical Workers, Bombay Vs A.L. Alaspurkar and Others (1994 LIC 2582 (SC) = 1995 (71) FLR 79 (SC) ). In any case, in all out change to the previously mentioned case the Supreme Court in AIR India Statutory Corporation Vs United Labor Union and Others ( supra) between alia decided that by "important ramifications" the Principal Employer will be under statutory commitment to retain the Contract Labor on nullification of the Contract Labor framework.

Under such back ground the five seat of the Supreme Court in the SAIL case (supra) inspected the topic of programmed retention of Contract Labor on issuance of a substantial notice under segment 10 (1) of the CLRA Act. The Court decided that in segment 10 of the CLRA demonstration there is no verifiable necessity of programmed ingestion of Contract Labor by the Principal Employer in the concerned foundation on issuance of warning by the suitable Government under area 10(1) denying work of Contract Labor in a given foundation. Be that as it may, the Court saw in the event that an agreement between the Principal Employer and the Contractor is observed to be not honest to goodness but rather an insignificant cover, the purported Contract Labor should be dealt with as representatives of the Principal Employer and might be guided by the modern adjudicator to regularize the administrations of the Contract Labor in the concerned foundation. Notwithstanding, such cases will be managed under the Industrial Disputes Act and not under the CLRA.

In light of this judgment the idea of programmed assimilation of Contract Labor is no more a sine qua non in the foundation of the Principal Employer when a notice by suitable Government is issued under segment 10(1) of the CLRA. Following the proportion chose in SAIL (supra) the Courts are additionally now steady in their decisions as respect to ingestion of Contract Labor is worried in the foundation of the Principal Employer on issuance of notice under segment 10(1) of the CLRA.

This seat overruled the Air India case (supra) tentatively in view of which different bearings were issued by different High Courts and even Supreme Court for assimilation of Contract Labor in the foundation of the Principal Employer if there should be an occurrence of abrogation of the Contract Labor. Dina Nath (supra) was reestablished by this seat. In any case, before we close couple of expressions of alert. In issues identified with support of a Statutory Canteen this seat has decided that these cases remain in various balance and has maintained the V.S.T Industries case (AIR 2000 SC 2695) treating the Contract Labors sent in Statutory Canteen as the representatives of the Principal Employer.

After the profession of SAIL judgment the problem as respect to assimilation of Contract Labors by Principal Employer seems to have been expelled. The Supreme Court after the SAIL judgment has been reliably of the view that there is no programmed retention after the notice has been issued by the suitable specialist disallowing the engagement of Contract Labor.