Back
Karnataka High Court
ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS, KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 04-13-05
Writ Petition : 28677 of 2001
Writ Petition : 41091 of 2001
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - Legislative history -Narrated.
[R. Gururajan, J]: The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 for short the Act is a Central Act and it received the accent of the President on 5-9-1990. A reading of objects and reasons would show that question of abolition was under consideration of the Government for a long time. In the second five year plan the planning commissioner made certain recommendations, namely problem of contract labour, progressive abolition of the system and improvement of service conditions of contract labour where the abolition was not possible. The matter was discussed at various meetings of tripartite committees at which the State Governments were also represented and general consensus of opinion was that the system should be abolished wherever possible or practicable and that in cases where this system could not be abolished altogether, the working conditions of contract labour should be regulated so as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities. In the light of these recommendations the Central Government introduced Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act and it became the law w.e.f. 7-9-1970.
Cases Referred: 1978 (4) SCC 257; AIR 1958 SC 1018; AIR 1976 SC 741; AIR 1976 (1) KLJ 273; AIR 1976 SC 1078; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1996 SC 2560; AIR 2004(4) 124; 2002(2) SCC 333; 1996(5) SCC 268; AIR 1998 Kar 1897; AIR 2001 SC 1257; 1999(2) LLJ 696; 2001(1) LLJ 1270; AIR 2003 SC 3124; 2003(3) LLJ 847; 2001(2) LLJ 1087; AIR 2004(1) LLJ 227; 1974 (3) SCC 66; AIR 2003 SC 3647; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1963 SC 928; 1955 SC 352.
Regularisation of contract labour in industrial canteens
LABOUR AND SERVICES -Regularisation of contract labour in industrial canteens -They stand on a different footing compared to other contract labour -They are entitled to regularisation.
[R. Gururajan, J]: Statutory canteen contract workers stand on a different footing compared to other contract labour. They are entitled for regularisation. The earlier notification prohibited contract labour in industrial canteens and subsequently the same has been withdrawn. The petitioners are therefore entitled for declaration only to the extent of statutory canteen maintained by the employers. The prayer for regularisation has to be granted in the light of various decisions, A writ of declaration has to be issued that statutory canteen workers are to be regularised by respective managements in terms of the law governing such matters. However, where there is dispute with regard to statutory canteen or with regard to any other service condition of that labour than contract labour regularisation has to be done by an Industrial Adjudicator depending upon the facts of each case.
Object of the Act
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970
Object of the Act -Is to abolish contract labour wherever it is possible and to regulate wherever it is not possible to abolish.
[R. Gururajan, J]: The object of the Act in terms of the preamble is to abolish contract labour wherever it is possible and regulation of contract labour where such abolition is not possible. Chapter 3 deals with registration of establishments employing contract labour. Sec. 10 deals with prohibition of employment of contract labour. Sec. 10 has under gone several judicial scrutiny in terms of the several case laws. Courts have considered the object of the Act. The main object of the act is to abolish as to regulate contract labour in terms of the statute and in terms of intention of the legislature in the matter.
Interpretation of the Act
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970
Interpretation -Act is a social piece of legislation -Should be liberally construed.
[R. Gururajan, J]: In the light of Art. 39 to 43 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to interpret the social welfare legislation in a meaningful way so as not to deviate the objection of the very legislation. Social welfare legislations have been enacted to provide a meaningful life in terms of Art. 21. Meaningful life has to be encouraged by way if pumping the blood and flesh to such social welfare legislation so that it does not become a dead letter depriving the weaker Section the very object of the legislation meant for weaker Sections of society of India. Therefore approach of this Courts has to be in consonance with the social justice principle in terms of the Constitution of India.
Regularisation of contract labour in industrial canteens
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 SECTION 10
Section 10 -Regularisation of contract labour in industrial canteens -They stand on a different footing compared to other contract labour -They are entitled to regularisation.
[R. Gururajan, J]: Statutory canteen contract workers stand on a different footing compared to other contract labour. They are entitled for regularisation. The earlier notification prohibited contract labour in industrial canteens and subsequently the same has been withdrawn. The petitioners are therefore entitled for declaration only to the extent of statutory canteen maintained by the employers. The prayer for regularisation has to be granted in the light of various decisions, A writ of declaration has to be issued that statutory canteen workers are to be regularised by respective managements in terms of the law governing such matters. However, where there is dispute with regard to statutory canteen or with regard to any other service condition of that labour than contract labour regularisation has to be done by an Industrial Adjudicator depending upon the facts of each case.
Power of Government
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970
Sections 10 & 21 -Power of Government -Government issued notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens -Notification approved by Supreme Court -Whether Government has power to cancel, rescind, modify or revise the abolition notification paving way to appointment of contract labour in industrial canteens? No.
[R. Gururajan, J]: The State Government took ten long years to abolish the contract labour in industrial canteens after collecting several materials. They were challenged unsuccessfully before this Court and before the Apex Court by the very respondents and the Government supported the notification in the earlier proceedings. After the proceedings have come to an end, the government despite there being no factual foundation or legal foundation has chosen to abolish the abolition. The Court cannot but notice that immediately after the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government has chosen to withdraw the judicially approved notification. Government must be careful in not giving an impression that it can veto judgments judiciary has its own role to play in the democratic set up in terms of the Constitution of this country. Even before the ink in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court judgment could dry, the Government hurriedly without any material, contrary to the statutory object has chosen to go back to the so called archaic system in terms of its own submission in the earlier proceedings. Industrial democracy need industrial peace and harmony. There has to be a consistent stand in such matters unless grave circumstances or grave emergency warrants a differing view. It is hoped that the Government would avoid such hasty decision and see that the industrial peace and harmony is maintained and the goal of fruitful life or meaningful life in terms of Art. 21,39 to 43 is achieved by the State.
Constitution of India -Goal of fruitful life -Articles 21, 39 to 43 -Goal of fruitful life -Government issued notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens -Notification approved by Supreme Court -Whether Government has power to cancel, rescind, modify or revise the abolition notification paving way to appointment of contract labour in industrial canteens? No -Government should avoid such hasty decisions and promote industrial harmony and goal of fruitful life be achieved. [R. Gururajan, J]: There has to be a consistent stand in such matters unless grave circumstances or grave emergency warrants a differing view. It is hoped that the Government would avoid such hasty decision and see that the industrial peace and harmony is maintained and the goal of fruitful life or meaningful life in terms of Art. 21,39 to 43 is achieved by the State.
Cases Referred:1978 (4) SCC 257; AIR 1958 SC 1018; AIR 1976 SC 741; AIR 1976 (1) KLJ 273; AIR 1976 SC 1078; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1996 SC 2560; AIR 2004(4) 124; 2002(2) SCC 333; 1996(5) SCC 268; AIR 1998 Kar 1897; AIR 2001 SC 1257; 1999(2) LLJ 696; 2001(1) LLJ 1270; AIR 2003 SC 3124; 2003(3) LLJ 847; 2001(2) LLJ 1087; AIR 2004(1) LLJ 227; 1974 (3) SCC 66; AIR 2003 SC 3647; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1963 SC 928; 1955 SC 352.
Constitution of India -Locus Standi -Article 226 -Locus Standi -Notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens issued by Government -Later by another notification rescinded the earlier notification -Challenge as to -Petitioners are trade unions and employees of some industrial canteens -As a consequence of abolition of contract labour definitely certain rights will flow to these employees -Paving way to appointment of contract labour affect their regularisation -Hence, it cannot be said that they don t have any interest in the matter. [R. Gururajan, J]: . The abolition of contract labour has its own consequences and in such a consequence certain rights definitely flow to the employees. Even the label of contract labour is abolished in the light of abolition of contract labour. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner as such have no right to maintain these petitions. Even otherwise, this court has to notice that the petitioners being affected by the said notification have a right to maintain these petitions and that therefore no right argument does not appeal to me. If really no right is available to the employees, the employers would not have insisted On this notification being recalled in the subsequent notification. It is also seen that petitioners are also seeking regularisation rights in the given circumstances and on the basis of several judgments of Courts of law. A reading of the entire petition would show that it cannot be said that the petitioners are foreign to these petitions and they have some interest in the matter.
Cases Referred: 1978 (4) SCC 257; AIR 1958 SC 1018; AIR 1976 SC 741; AIR 1976 (1) KLJ 273; AIR 1976 SC 1078; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1996 SC 2560; AIR 2004(4) 124; 2002(2) SCC 333; 1996(5) SCC 268; AIR 1998 Kar 1897; AIR 2001 SC 1257; 1999(2) LLJ 696; 2001(1) LLJ 1270; AIR 2003 SC 3124; 2003(3) LLJ 847; 2001(2) LLJ 1087; AIR 2004(1) LLJ 227; 1974 (3) SCC 66; AIR 2003 SC 3647; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1963 SC 928; 1955 SC 352.
Goal of fruitful life
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 21, 39 to 43 -Goal of fruitful life -Government issued notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens -Notification approved by Supreme Court -Whether Government has power to cancel, rescind, modify or revise the abolition notification paving way to appointment of contract labour in industrial canteens? No -Government should avoid such hasty decisions and promote industrial harmony and goal of fruitful life be achieved.
[R. Gururajan, J]: There has to be a consistent stand in such matters unless grave circumstances or grave emergency warrants a differing view. It is hoped that the Government would avoid such hasty decision and see that the industrial peace and harmony is maintained and the goal of fruitful life or meaningful life in terms of Art. 21,39 to 43 is achieved by the State.
Cases Referred:1978 (4) SCC 257; AIR 1958 SC 1018; AIR 1976 SC 741; AIR 1976 (1) KLJ 273; AIR 1976 SC 1078; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1996 SC 2560; AIR 2004(4) 124; 2002(2) SCC 333; 1996(5) SCC 268; AIR 1998 Kar 1897; AIR 2001 SC 1257; 1999(2) LLJ 696; 2001(1) LLJ 1270; AIR 2003 SC 3124; 2003(3) LLJ 847; 2001(2) LLJ 1087; AIR 2004(1) LLJ 227; 1974 (3) SCC 66; AIR 2003 SC 3647; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1963 SC 928; 1955 SC 352.
Locus Standi
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226 -Locus Standi -Notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens issued by Government -Later by another notification rescinded the earlier notification -Challenge as to -Petitioners are trade unions and employees of some industrial canteens -As a consequence of abolition of contract labour definitely certain rights will flow to these employees -Paving way to appointment of contract labour affect their regularisation -Hence, it cannot be said that they don t have any interest in the matter.
[R. Gururajan, J]: . The abolition of contract labour has its own consequences and in such a consequence certain rights definitely flow to the employees. Even the label of contract labour is abolished in the light of abolition of contract labour. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner as such have no right to maintain these petitions. Even otherwise, this court has to notice that the petitioners being affected by the said notification have a right to maintain these petitions and that therefore no right argument does not appeal to me. If really no right is available to the employees, the employers would not have insisted On this notification being recalled in the subsequent notification. It is also seen that petitioners are also seeking regularisation rights in the given circumstances and on the basis of several judgments of Courts of law. A reading of the entire petition would show that it cannot be said that the petitioners are foreign to these petitions and they have some interest in the matter.
Cases Referred: 1978 (4) SCC 257; AIR 1958 SC 1018; AIR 1976 SC 741; AIR 1976 (1) KLJ 273; AIR 1976 SC 1078; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1996 SC 2560; AIR 2004(4) 124; 2002(2) SCC 333; 1996(5) SCC 268; AIR 1998 Kar 1897; AIR 2001 SC 1257; 1999(2) LLJ 696; 2001(1) LLJ 1270; AIR 2003 SC 3124; 2003(3) LLJ 847; 2001(2) LLJ 1087; AIR 2004(1) LLJ 227; 1974 (3) SCC 66; AIR 2003 SC 3647; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1963 SC 928; 1955 SC 352.
Contract labour
LABOUR AND SERVICES - Contract labour -Abolition of -Government issued notification abolishing contract labour in industrial canteens -Notification approved by Supreme Court -Whether Government has power to cancel, rescind, modify or revise the abolition notification paving way to appointment of contract labour in industrial canteens? No.
[R. Gururajan, J]: The State Government took ten long years to abolish the contract labour in industrial canteens after collecting several materials. They were challenged unsuccessfully before this Court and before the Apex Court by the very respondents and the Government supported the notification in the earlier proceedings. After the proceedings have come to an end, the government despite there being no factual foundation or legal foundation has chosen to abolish the abolition. The Court cannot but notice that immediately after the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government has chosen to withdraw the judicially approved notification. Government must be careful in not giving an impression that it can veto judgments judiciary has its own role to play in the democratic set up in terms of the Constitution of this country. Even before the ink in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court judgment could dry, the Government hurriedly without any material, contrary to the statutory object has chosen to go back to the so called archaic system in terms of its own submission in the earlier proceedings. Industrial democracy need industrial peace and harmony. There has to be a consistent stand in such matters unless grave circumstances or grave emergency warrants a differing view. It is hoped that the Government would avoid such hasty decision and see that the industrial peace and harmony is maintained and the goal of fruitful life or meaningful life in terms of Art. 21,39 to 43 is achieved by the State.
( 2 ) FACTS in W. P. Nos. 28677 and 28678 of 2001: the first and second petitioners are trade unions. Third and fourth petitioners are employed in the canteen run and maintained by the respondent/management. Petitioners say that the management of the industries preferred employment on contract basis and that would facilitate them to exploit the workmen in terms of cheap labour. The system of contract labour has been considered as a baneful and pernicious system and has kindled the judicial conscience since the workmen would have no security of service and their wages have often been far below the minimum wages prescribed by the State government. In order to arrest this trend the Central Government enacted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the Act' ). The primary object of the Act is to abolish the system of contract labour wherever it is possible. Second respondent issued a notification dated 11-4-1997 prohibiting employment of contract labour in industrial canteen. The said notification was challenged by several managements before this Court by way of writ petitions. The matter was referred to a Division Bench. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petitions in terms of its order dated 30-9-1998 (M/s. Larsen and toubro Limited, Bangalore and Another v State of Karnataka ). The management thereafter preferred special leave petitions. They were rejected by the Supreme Court. Review petitions filed against the said rejection order were also dismissed on 19-4-1991. Notification dated 11-4-1997 became final in terms of these judicial pronouncements. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, several managements did not implement the notification. There were correspondence between the parties in the matter. Complaints were filed before the third respondent for appropriate action against those managements for contravention of the Act. In the meanwhile, the management through their association called Karnataka Employer's Association submitted a representation to respondent 3 to initiate measures to withdraw the notification. Matter was referred to the Contract Labour Advisory Board. There was protest by the trade unions with regard to withdrawal of the notification. However, the Government has chosen to proceed to withdraw the earlier notification abolishing contract labour, in terms of Annexure-O. Annexure-O is challenged by raising several contentions. W. P. No. 41091 of 2001 is filed by MICO Contract Employees' association challenging Annexure-M and Annexure-O with same are similar facts and grounds. W. P. No. 41092 of 2001 is filed by L and T Komatsu Limited, with similar facts challenging Annexure-K, the notification dated 1-8-2001 with additional prayers and for additional directions. W. P. No. 15042 of 2002 is filed by the workmen of MICO naganathapura Canteen, challenging the very same notifications as in other cases. In addition they want a direction to the management to treat the contract labourers as regular employees and for absorption of their services with effect from 11-4-1997 with all consequential benefits. Petitioner also refers to the proceedings in terms of the material facts as in the connected writ petitions. However in the present case, an application is filed at Annexure-J to contend that the workmen are put to hardship and difficulties on account of poor wage structure. Application is also filed in terms of Annexure-K. It is stated that the service conditions of the contract workers are miserable and that they are not even paid 25% of wages which are being paid to the regular workmen. With these additional facts, petitioner wants a same or similar direction as in the connected cases. W. P. No. 5293 of 2004 is filed by the workmen of BHEL (EDN) canteen challenging the very same notification. Petitioner states that its member
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
