important point
All activities of the authorities of the Central Government must have a statutory backing.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. –

1.Leave granted.

2.Assistant Salt Commissioner, the appellant herein, is responsible for monitoring production and supply of salt within his jurisdiction. Salt Commission is attached to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (Salt Desk), Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

3.The Parliament enacted Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act) to consolidate and amend the law relating to central duties of excise and to salt.

4.Chapter V of the said Act provides for special provisions relating to salt. Salt manufacture etc. is dealt with in Chapter VI of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 102 prohibits manufacture of salt except under a licence. Such a licence is to be granted by the Collector within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.

“Rules 129 and 130 of the said Rules read as under:

Rule 129. Licensees to maintain in good order roads, channels, reservoirs, etc.The licensee at each salt factory shall be bound, at his own expense, to construct and maintain within the limits of the factory in good repair to the satisfaction of the Collector all roads and all channels, reservoirs, embankments, drying grounds, platforms and other works used or intended to be used for the manufacture and storage of salt, and also any works wherever situated for the protection of the factory from inundation or for the supply of brine.

Rule 130. When works may be undertaken by Central Excise Department.If the licensee fails to execute the works specified in rule 129, or, with the sanction of the Central Government, whenever it appears desirable that any such work should be undertaken by the Central Excise Department, the Collector may cause such works to be executed and may recover the cost thereof, in such proportions as may deem fit, from the licensees.”

5.Respondents were said to have been appointed by the holders of licences granted under the said Act. They were refused regular appointment by the Assistant Salt Commissioner, Tuticorin, whereupon an industrial dispute was raised. The appropriate Government made the following reference to the Labour Court for its adjudication:

“Is the Assistant Salt Commissioner, Tuticorin justified in refusing regular employment to the 12 workmen (list enclosed) on the ground that they are employed to maintain salt platform mazdoor on behalf of the licensees and their appointment is made by the department only for the purpose of annual estimates? If not to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

6.According to the respondents, as they had been appointed by Assistant Salt Commissioner and have been working as Platform Mazdoor for a period ranging from 10 to 30 years and furthermore as they had completed more than 240 days work in a year, they should have been regularized in service.

Before the Labour Court, inter alia, a contention was raised that the Platform Mazdoors were engaged on daily wages on behalf of the salt licensees as per Rules 121, 129 and 130 of the Rules and the amount of wages paid to them is recovered from the licensees by way of special cess.

It was stated that the said method was adopted when the platform and drying grounds were being used jointly by a number of licensees.

Before the learned Labour Court, however, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant.

In its order, the learned Labour Court held :

1.Admittedly, respondents have been working in the Salt Department.

2.They were appointed several decades back and have been working directly under the Department.

3.Disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the Departmental Officials.

4.They have been given housing facilities as also earned leave facilities by the Department.

On the said premise, it was held that they are the workmen employed by the Department itself.

7.A writ petition was preferred thereagainst and a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same stating :

“Apart from those particulars, one Arulamandam one of the workmen was examined as W.W.1. He asserted before th