Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND V. KHALID, JJ.
Food Corporation of India Workers Union, Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 13508 of 1983, D/- 1-3-1985.
Contract Labour Act, 1970 - Section 5, 10, 1(4)(a),(b), 1(5)(a),(b), 7, 2(1)(a) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 2(a)(1), 3, Food Corporation Act, 1964 - Section 16 - Bonus Act, 1965 - Section 32(iv) - Industrial Act, 1951 - Corporation - Labourers - Benefits of Act - Wages and Other Reliefs - First respondent Corporation, second respondent: Union of India third respondent : Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and respondent 4 to 22, various State Governments - Corporation has been entrusted by second respondent with duty of procuring food grains and its movement and distribution throughout country - Corporation employs for discharge of this work three types of labourers - Petitioners have been trying to pursuade Corporation for progressive departmentalisation of its labour - They, however, did not succeed - Their grievance is that even limited benefits available to them under provisions of Act have not been extended to them - By this writ petition they pray, for a writ of mandamus either to Union Government or to State Governments, to extend to them benefits of Act, for a direction to Corporation to pay them same wages as are paid to departmentalised labour and ,for other reliefs - Whether. any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, decision of appropriate Government thereon, shall be final - Whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with Central Board or, as case may be, State Board, and its decision shall be final - Whether various establishments of Corporation spread all over country could be said to be establishments pertaining to any industry carried on by or under authority of Central Government or pertaining to any such controlled industry as maybe specified in this behalf by Central Government – Held, Court is of opinion that it may not be possible or proper for court to grant the reliefs prayed for by petitioner in full on materials on record - Materials are scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive adjudication of claims of petitioners and to grant them reliefs as prayed for - Act contains provisions enabling appropriate Government to get reports as to how to implement provisions of Act - Only course open to court is to issue appropriate direction to State Governments to constitute committees under Section 5 of Act, to make necessary enquiries, and to submit a report as to whether it would be possible to abolish contract labour in Corporation altogether - In so doing, court will have to exclude State because counter-affidavit filed by that State shows that necessary action is being taken under Act - Accordingly a writ of mandamus will be issued to all State Governments except State of Madhya Pradesh for appointing a committee under Section 5 of Act within three months from today to enquire whether contract labour in Corporation should be abolished - Committee shall submit a report within four months of its constitution and Government is directed to take action on such report within two months thereafter - Necessary expenses for committees will be borne by Corporation - Since Madhya Pradesh Government has already constituted committees under Section 5, said State is directed to ask committees so appointed to make their reports expeditiously and to take appropriate action on reports as indicated above - Corporation will be at liberty to place materials before committees whether it comes within exemption clause - As indicated above with costs to petitioner quantified at Rs. 2,000,00 payable by Corporation – Petition allowed.
Judgment
KHALID, J. :- This is a representative action brought on behalf of the Contract Labourers, working with the Food Corporation of India, the first respondent in the writ petition, distressed by the unhelpful attitude of both the Central and the State Governments in not redressing their grievances for either departmentalising them or in the alternative .extending to them the benefit of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short The Act). The petitioners complaint is that the Central and the State Governments play hide and seek, one pointing to the other as the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act and thus denying to them what is their due.
2. The first respondent is the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called The Corporation); the second respondent: Union of India the third respondent : Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and respondent 4 to 22, various State Governments. The Corporation has been entrusted by the second respondent with the duty of procuring food grains and its movement and distribution throughout the country. The corporation employs for the discharge of this work three types of labourers : (1) departmentalised labour who are its regular employees; (2) direct paid labour; and (3) contract labour who are employed by the Corporation, through the intermediary of contractors. The petitioners have been trying to pursuade the Corporation for progressive departmentalisation of its labour. They, however, did not succeed. Their grievance is that even the limited benefits available to them under the provisions of the Act have not been extended to them. By this writ petition they pray, for a writ of mandamus either to the Union Government or to the State Governments, to extend to them the benefits of the Act, for a direction to the Corporation to pay them the same wages as are paid to the departmentalised tabour and ,for other reliefs.
3. In a detailed counter-affidavit, the Corporation has pleaded that the appropriate Government for the purpose of the claims of the petitioners is the State Government and not the Central Government, and that it is not practicable for the Corporation to employ the labour whom the petitioner represents as departmental tabour since the nature of the operations are seasonal, sporadic and varied from region to region, that the work of the Corporation fluctuates in volume at different places and at different points depending upon the procurement, movement and off-take of food grains. It is further stated that it is not easy for abolition of Contract tabour employed by the Corporation since other like organisations connected with the Government of India also employ contract labourers and hence abolition of contract labour cannot be considered in isolation for the Corporation alone. Among the State Governments, the 15th respondent (the State of Madhya Pradesh) and the 21st respondent (the State of Punjab). have filed their respective counter-affidavits.
4. In its counter affidavit the State of Madhya Pradesh has stated that the said Government have framed rules under the Act (which came into force on 10-2-1971) for implementation of its provisions, that the Act is being implemented in its entirety in the said State, that it has constituted an independent State Advisory Contract Labour Board which was advising the State Government on such matters as are referred to it, that it has also constituted a committee on 31st March 1981 in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 5 of the Act, and that in the case of 22 branches, prosecutions were launched for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act.
5. In the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 21, (the State of Punjab) it is stated that the appropriate Government for the purpose of the Act for the regional office of the Corporation in the Punjab State, is the State Government.
6. Before considering the claims of the petitioners, we will have a look at some of the provisio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
