Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-The appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the ‘Corporation’) was the first respondent before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 436 of 1991 filed by Mumbai Shra­mik Sangha (a trade union), Bombay. The said trade-union is the first respondent in this appeal. M/s. Kleenwel (India), Bombay and the Union of India are the second and third respondents in this appeal and were second and third respondents, respectively, before the High Court. The appeal is preferred by the Corporation against the orders of the High Court of Bombay dated 30.1.1997, 31.1.1997 and 21.2.1997. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the abovementioned trade-union and held that the workmen, who were employed by the Contractor M/s. Kleenwel (India) for cleaning, sweeping, etc. in the housing colony and sports complex of the Corporation were entitled to the benefits of Notification dated 9.12.1976 issued by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Aboli­tion) Act, 1970 (Act 37/1970) (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), abolish­ing contract labour and hence the said contract labour should be absorbed, w.e.f. 1.2.1991, as permanent employees of the Corporation and entitled to the emoluments and other benefits available to other workmen of the Corporation doing similar work.

2. The point therefore is whether the words “in any establishment” in Section 10 of the Act, which section deals with abolition of contract labour, can taken in contract labour employed not at the place where the industrial operations or other operations necessary­ or incidental thereto are carried on but also those employed at the staff quarters/sports complex of the Corporation.

3. Learned Solicitor General Sri T.R. Andhyarujina however strongly relied up the observation of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gammon (India) Ltd. v. Union of India1 to contend that in view of the language used in Section 10 of the Act and in particular the words “in any establishment” in Section 10(1) and the words “in that establishment” in Section 10(2), the Government of India could not have issued any notification prohibiting contract labour except at the place where the main industrial operation are going on (as in Section 10(1)) or where the work is `incidental to’ or `necessary’ for the industry, trade, manufacture or occupation that is carried on again at the place where the industrial operations are going on (as in Section 10(2)). It was argued that the power of the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act does not, therefore, extend to prohibiting contract labour who do the work of cleaning, sweeping, etc. at the residential or Sports Complex of the staff of the Petroleum Corporation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon Section 2(b) which defines ‘contract labour’ and on Section 2(i) which defines ‘workmen’ where the words ‘in connection with the work of an estab­lishment’ are used. Similar words are used in Section 2(9)(i) of the Employees State Insurance Act and such words have been widely inter­preted in N.E.L.P. Co. v. E.S.I. Corporation2, Hederabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. Employees Insurance Court & Anr.3. Royal Talkies v. Employees State Insurance Corporation4, Regional Director v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd.5. The words “in connection with” are also used in Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and have been widely interpreted in P.M. Patel & Sons v. Union of India6. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgments of this Court interpreting the definition of ‘workmen’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where even though the words “ in connection with” have not been used, the said words were more or less implied. This was in Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v. Management7. Banga­lore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Rajappa8. Strong reliance was also placed by respondents on J.K. Cott