Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
R. Ramaswamy – Appellant
Vs.
The Government of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 499 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Appellant : Sri. V. Hariharan.
For the Respondent: Sri. B. Narayana Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General, Sri. E. Manohar and Sri. Kakara Venkata Rao.
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Section 10(1) – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003 – Notification – Workmen – Compensat rohibiting the employment of contract labour in the jobs of security guards and security supervisors in the establishment of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation at Thatipaka, Amalapuram, Mori and Narasapuram of Rajahmundry Basin in Andhra Pradesh. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge held that the impugned notification was issued in clear disregard of the amendments effected to the Act of 1970 by Act, 2003, and accordingly set it aside – Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers liability, workmens compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits – It is therefore clear that both the Centre and the State would have concurrent legislative power on the subject – Amendment Act received the assent of the President of India and the assent was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette By Amendment Act of 2003, which was brought into effect from 22.08.2003 and extended to the whole of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, amendments were made to Act of 1970 which are relevant for the purposes of this case. Section 2 of the Act of 1970 was amended by introducing definition of core activity under Section 2(1)(dd) – Held, In rejecting this specious argument. Section 2(1)(dd) and Section 10(2)(a) to (c) were introduced in the statute in its application to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh by the very same Amendment Act of 2003. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act of 2003 states to the effect that, in order to reduce the cost of establishments, it had been decided to exclude certain services such as watch and ward, sanitation and other cleaning works, canteen works, canteen and catering service, civil and other construction work and loading and unloading, from the core activity of such establishments – No merit in submission of counsel, that there is no repugnancy between provisions of Act of 1970 in so far as it applies to other States and in its application to present State of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of the amendments made under Amendment Act of 2003 – As pointed out supra, a complete shift in approach was effected by Amendment Act of 2003 in so far as application of the Act of 1970 in erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was concerned and once President of India gave his assent thereto, amended provisions, which were at variance with those in principal Act of 1970, would prevail till Central Government makes a law adding to or bringing amendment to or repealing the provisions of the Amendment Act of 2003 – Writ Appeal is dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by a learned Judge allowing W.P. No. 24817 of 2012, the 4th respondent therein is in appeal. The said writ petition was filed by the 4th respondent herein, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, assailing the notification dated 22.06.2012 issued by the Government of India, exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter, the Act of 1970), prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the jobs of security guards and security supervisors in the establishment of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation at Thatipaka, Amalapuram, Mori and Narasapuram of Rajahmundry Basin in Andhra Pradesh. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge held that the impugned notification was issued in clear disregard of the amendments effected to the Act of 1970 by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003, and accordingly set it aside.
2. Heard Sri. V. Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent and Sri. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri. Kakara Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent/writ petitioner.
3. The Act of 1970 is a welfare legislation promulgated by the Parliament and is traceable to Entry 24 of List III, the Concurrent List, in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Entry 24 reads as under:
Welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers liability, workmens compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits.
4. It is therefore clear that both the Centre and the State would have concurrent legislative power on the subject. This aspect is conceded by Sri. V. Hariharan, learned counsel and he does not dispute the power of the State Government to bring about amendments to the Act of 1970 in its application within the State.
5. By the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003 (hereinafter, the Amendment Act of 2003), the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly amended the Act of 1970. This Amendment Act received the assent of the President of India on 11.06.2003 and the assent was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 19.06.2003 By the Amendment Act of 2003, which was brought into effect from 22.08.2003 and extended to the whole of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, amendments were made to the Act of 1970 which are relevant for the purposes of this case. Section 2 of the Act of 1970 was amended by introducing the definition of core activity under Section 2(1)(dd):
2. Amendment of Section 2 of Central Act 37 of 1970:-- In the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) as in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Section 2 in sub-section (1) after clause (d), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:
(dd) Core Activity of an establishment means any activity for which the establishment is set up and includes any activity which is essential or necessary to the core activity, but does not include:-
(1) Sanitation works, including Sweeping, Cleaning, Dusting, and Collection and disposal of all kinds of waste.
(2) Watch and ward services including security service.
(3) Canteen and Catering services.
(4) Loading and Un-loading operations.
(5) Running of Hospitals, Educational & Training Institutions, Guest Houses, Clubs and the like where they are in the nature of support services of an Establishment.
(6) Courier Services which are in nature of support services of an Establishment.
(7) Civil and other constructional works, including maintenance.
(8) Gardening and maintenance of Lawns etc.
(9) House keeping and laundry services etc., where they are in nature support services of an Establishment.
(10) Transport services including Ambulance Services;
(11) Any activity of intermittent in nature even if that constitutes a core-activity of an Establishment;
(12) Any other activity which is incid
