JUDGMENT : A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.2012 in W.P. No.2747/1998. It is apposite to reproduce the reliefs claimed in the said writ petition. The same read thus : "(1) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 to treat the employees as shown in Annexure R-6 as the employee of the respondents. (2) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 that after treating the workers employees of the respondent No.1 & 2 they be regularised and absorbed in the services of respondents. (3) to direct the respondents No.1 & 2 that after the absorption workers and their regularisation be given all arrears and differences of salary and other consequential benefits as are given to the regular employee. (4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also be granted together with costs." 2. The respondent-Sangh had questioned the contract awarded to M/s Singh & Sons, who was the successful bidder for work of "Ripping of stone roof of the existing gallaries, drivage of haulage and travelling drifts and one number of inter connection between the haulage and travelling road" at Bhawani incline of Ambara Colliery, Kanhan Area. 3. The respondent-Sangh submitted a representation to the Chief Labour Commissioner regarding allocation of the said work to a private contractor for a period of one year. That representation was eventually rejected on 5.8.1996. Against that decision, the respondent-Sangh filed writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1056/1997, which, however, was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.1997 with direction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) to record finding as to whether the appellant has resorted to any unfair labour practice by giving labour contract to private contractor for six months initially, thereafter to be renewed for another period of six months. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner after due inquiry submitted his report dated 10.6.1998. The report concludes that the work given to the private contractor was covered by the prohibited category and could not have been given by the appellant Company in terms of notification dated 21.6.1988 bearing S.O. No.2063 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. That report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not been challenged by the appellant. It is the respondent, who, once again approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2747/1998 praying for the reliefs reproduced hitherto. 5. That report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not been challenged by the appellant. It is the respondent, who, once again approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2747/1998 praying for the reliefs reproduced hitherto. 5. The learned Single Judge, after analysing these aspects opined that it was necessary to inquire into the fact as to whether the workmen whose names appear in Annexure-P/6 were employed by the contractor. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, accordingly, directed the appellant to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether or not the workmen whose names appear in Annexure-P/6 were employed by the contractor and thereafter to take a decision in accordance with law. That inquiry was ordered to be conducted by the appellant expeditiously. The appellant, instead has questioned the correctness of the said decision by way of present intra-Court writ appeal. 6. The argument of the appellant, is that, the conclusion reached in the inquiry report to the effect that the appellant had admitted that the work allocated to the contractor was falling under the prohibited category is incorrect. Further, the finding recorded in the inquiry report travels beyond the scope of inquiry directed by this Court in the previous writ petition between the parties. It is then contended that the fact whether the workers employed by the contractor can be treated as workmen of the appellant Company and need to be absorbed as such is a matter, which can be adjudicated only before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, being an industrial dispute. These are the broad contentions canvased before us. 7. The first contention deserves to be stated to be rejected having regard to the observations found in the order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the previous writ petition bearing W.P. No.1056/1997. That decision has been allowed to become final by the appellant. In fact, the appellant participated in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the said direction. The order reads thus : "W.P. No.1056/1997 11.11.1997 Shri R.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rajendra Menon, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this petition filed by the petitioners, it is claimed that the order dated 5.8.1996 contained in Annexure P-1 is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction. It is urged that pursuant to the order dated 2.4.1996 passed by this Court in Misc. Shri Rajendra Menon, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this petition filed by the petitioners, it is claimed that the order dated 5.8.1996 contained in Annexure P-1 is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction. It is urged that pursuant to the order dated 2.4.1996 passed by this Court in Misc. Petition No.1150/94, an enquiry was made by the respondent No.3 regarding the interpretation of Notification No.S.O.2063, dated 21.6.1988 issued under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is contended that the notification aforesaid prohibits engagement of contract labour in the work of driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting. However, there is a provision that this notification will not apply to cutting of stone drifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration say upto 6 months. The contract under consideration was given for less than six months and, therefore, this notification did not apply. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have made unfair labour practice by giving a labour contract for six months for the same thing and they again renewed the contract or awaited the contract for the same work to the different persons. No finding has been recorded by the respondent No.3 in this matter. Therefore, it is directed that a fresh finding shall be recorded by the respondent No.3 on the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules. JUDGE" (emphasis supplied) 8. On bare reading of this order, it is amply clear that the High Court directed inquiry by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the question inter alia about the application of Notification dated 21.06.1988 to the contract of work awarded to the private contractor. Pursuant to this direction, the inquiry was conducted and findings recorded vide Report dated 10.06.1998, wherein it has been found that the contract of work given to the private contractor was of prohibited category. Even this Report has not been challenged by the appellant. It has been allowed to become final by the appellant. Pursuant to this direction, the inquiry was conducted and findings recorded vide Report dated 10.06.1998, wherein it has been found that the contract of work given to the private contractor was of prohibited category. Even this Report has not been challenged by the appellant. It has been allowed to become final by the appellant. It is the respondent-Sangh who has approached this Court by way of W.P. No.2747/1998 for the reliefs prayed therein (as reproduced in para 1 above), relying on the said Report dated 10.06.1998. Suffice it to observe that it is not possible to countenance the argument of the appellant that the finding in the inquiry report dated 10.06.1998, transcends beyond the scope of inquiry ordered by the Court. The inquiry report deals with two core issues. Firstly, as to whether the contract awarded by the appellant in respect of stated work was covered by the prohibited category or otherwise and, secondly, whether the workers employed by the contractor for execution of the said contract can be considered as workmen of the appellant. On bare reading of the conclusion reached in the inquiry report, we find that the same is within the frame work specified by the High Court in terms of order dated 11.11.1997. The conclusions reached in the inquiry report can be discerned from the following observations : "............... On examination of the above documents produced by the management of W.C.Ltd., Kanhan Area (S.O. Mining) which are marked as Annexure - 2 to 13, it is observed that the Contractor has started the above contract work with effect from 12.4.1994 and completed on 25.5.1995 as per the completion certificate issued by Agent, Ambara Group of W.C.Ltd. Kanhan Area. Thus, it clearly shown that the management of Kanhan Area has extended the above work from time to time finally upto 25.5.1995 to M/s Singh & Sons for more then one year. As per the management written statement submitted vide letter No.MGR/AMD/95/Drift dated 11.3.1998 they have also admitted that the work was being carried out by the same contractor under prohibited category for a period of more then one year. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, the then Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara have already recorded his finding on the work done by the contractor for drivage of Incline (215 and 196 Mtrs) at Bhawani Incline of Ambara Group. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, the then Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara have already recorded his finding on the work done by the contractor for drivage of Incline (215 and 196 Mtrs) at Bhawani Incline of Ambara Group. As regards, Unfair Labour Practice made by the management of W.C. Ltd., Kanhan Area as stated by the learned Counsel of the petitioners by granting extension of time from time to time to the above named contractor, I have to state that the definition of Unfair Labour Practice has been defined under fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Notification No.S.O.2063 dated 21.6.1988, published in the Gazettee of India, Part-II, Section 3 Sub-Section (ii) dated 21.6.1988 (copy enclosed) that the Central Govt. prohibits employment of contract labour in the work specified in the schedule annexed thereto in all Coal Mines in the Country. THE SCHEDULE 1. Raising or raising-cum-selling of Coal; 2. Coal Loading and Unloading; 3. Over burden removal and earth cutting; 4. Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting under-ground: Provided that this notification shall not apply to the following categories :- (a) Quarries in the North-East Coal Field which can only be worked for a few months every year due to heavy rainfall in the area; (b) Quarries located by the side of the river in Pench valley, similar other patch deposits which can only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non-rainy season; (c) Loading of coal when there is mechanical failure, failure of power or irregular supply of wagon by the railways; and (d) Cutting of stone drifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short-duration, say upto six months. Secondly, as per the Map produced at the time of enquiry the drift was shown in the Map, so as per the Union the drift above contract work under prohibited category for more then one year with the same contractor. Shri P.K. Banerjee, in his letter No.nil dated 19.1.1998 requested this office to ask the management to submit some Registers/record like, Form-B Register, Form-C Register, Wages Register, Identity Card etc. The management submitted in writing that they do not have Form-B Register, form-C Register, Wages Register, lamp Issuing Register etc., so it is not possible for them to produce the above documents. The management submitted in writing that they do not have Form-B Register, form-C Register, Wages Register, lamp Issuing Register etc., so it is not possible for them to produce the above documents. Thus, it is clear violation of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Mines Act, 1952. Shri P.K. Banerjee on behalf of the workmen submitted Affidavits of 150 contract workers (List enclosed) who were engaged at Bhawani Incline by M/s Singh & Sons stating that these workers were engaged by the contractor for more than one year by the above contractor under prohibited category and requested that the poor workers should be regularised by the W.C. Ltd., Kanhan Area with effect from 25.5.1995. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, the then Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara have issued the labour licence for the period of one year only for 75 workers to M/s Singh & Sons for the above work at Bhawani Incline. (List of workers and copies of the Affidavit are enclosed). In view of the above, enquiry report is as under:- (1) The management has extended the contract work of Bhawani Incline for more than six months under prohibited category for a period of one year as per the completion certificate issued to the contractor. (2) The management has extended the above contract work to the same contractor continuously for a period of one year. (3) No Register/records were produced by the management/Contractor for the above contract work which is a violation of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Mines Act, 1952. (4) As per the Map produced at the time of enquiry the drift was known drift as per Shri P.K. Banerjee. (5) The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara has issued labour Licence for a period of one year for 75 workers only. Submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Jabalpur for kind information please." (emphasis supplied) 9. Notably, the appellant has not challenged this inquiry report. It is the respondent, who approached this Court by way of writ petition for the reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition, relying on the said inquiry report. In that context, the learned Single Judge examined the controversy and has observed that the conclusions reached on the factum as to whether the contract awarded by the appellant was in respect of prohibited category in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government. In that context, the learned Single Judge examined the controversy and has observed that the conclusions reached on the factum as to whether the contract awarded by the appellant was in respect of prohibited category in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government. That view is unexceptionable. 10. As a result, it became essential to consider the question whether the workmen employed by the contractor could be treated as workmen of the appellant Company. The learned Single Judge has adverted to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union and another, (2009) 13 SCC 374 and noted that the remedy of the workmen is under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to seek adjudication on the issue as to whether they have become direct employees of the principal employer and the agreement executed between the principal employer and the contract is sham and nominal. The learned Single Judge has then issued direction to the appellant to institute an inquiry on the factum of whether the workmen whose name appear in Annexure-P/6 were employed by the contractor and to take appropriate decision as per law on the basis of finding to be recorded in the said inquiry. 11. The question is: whether the direction so issued by the learned Single Judge can be said to be manifestly wrong' In the first place, we find no hesitation in taking the view that the appellant having failed to challenge the finding recorded in the inquiry report dated 10.6.1998, cannot be permitted to argue to the contrary. The finding recorded in the inquiry report makes it amply clear that the contract awarded by the appellant was for a period of more than one year, in respect of work covered by the prohibited category. This finding of fact has been allowed to become final by the appellant. On that finding, the appellant is expected to process the claim of the workmen employed by the private contractor for discharging the said work and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In fact, the appellant was under legal obligation to do so on its own. To that extent, no fault can be found with the direction given by the learned Single Judge, calling upon the appellant to inquire into that aspect and to take appropriate decision as per law. In fact, the appellant was under legal obligation to do so on its own. To that extent, no fault can be found with the direction given by the learned Single Judge, calling upon the appellant to inquire into that aspect and to take appropriate decision as per law. However, if the decision of the appellant in respect of any worker allegedly engaged by the private contractor was in the negative, it would be open to the said workman or Union to espouse his cause by way of industrial dispute. Only this modification of the direction given by the learned single Judge would meet the ends of justice. Nothing more is required to be done in this appeal, in the fact situation of the present case. 12. Appeal disposed of accordingly.