Back
1996 Supreme(Bom) 41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.R. Majithia D.K. Trivedi, JJ.
Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. another.... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3250 of 1991, decided on 22-1-1996.
Advocates appeared :
C.U. Singh,J.B., M/s. Haresh Mehta Co., for petitioners.
R.J. Mane, for respondent Nos. 1 2.
Headnote:Section 10(2)-Scope of.
Where the Parliament purports to restrict judicial review by conferring powers on an authority in subjective term inasmuch as such authority is entitled to act when it is satisfied or when it appears to it or when in its opinion it thinks proper to act, the power of the Courts to examine as to whether such satisfaction or opinion is based on relevant considerations and has been made in good faith, is not ousted in the instant case, the Court finds that the State Government issued the notification after consulting the State Advisory Contract Labour Board. The State Advisory Board gave opportunity of heating to all the concerned parties and after careful assessment of the rival contentions, it proposed abolition of contract labour in the work of house keeping and sweeping and declined the abolition in maintenance of gardens. The fact that the State Advisory Board did not accept the contention of the union to advise abolition of contract labour in the maintenance of garden, points out that it was fully conscious of its obligations under the statute. The State Advisory Board appears to be conscious that the object in engaging contract labour instead of direct employees is the monetary advantage by reducing expenditure. It advised abolition of contract labour where the conditions mentioned In Section 10(2) of the Act were fulfilled. The State Government has issued the notification after consulting the State Advisory Board and the person challenging the same has to bring on record the material on the basis of which it could be urged that the notification was issued on some extraneous consideration or without taking into account the relevant factors mentioned in Section 10(2) of the Act. No material has been produced before the Court or referred to in the writ petition. In the writ petition only general allegations have been made and no factual basis has been laid for challenging the notification abolishing contract labour system.
The Notification specifically recites that the State Government after consulting the State Advisory Board and having regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors, such as those referred to in Clauses (a) to (d) (both inclusive) of sub-section (2) of Section 10, prohibits employment of contract labour in the progress, operation and other work of house-keeping and sweeping of the employer. The language of the notification is suggestive that the appropriate Government has taken note of the relevant data while issuing the notification. No material has been placed before this Court except a bald assertion that the appropriate Government has not considered the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour as enjoined under sub-section (2) of Section 10. The final act will be presumed to have been done in accordance with law till it is proved otherwise.
The Counsel referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act for pointing out ai to who can file a petition under that Act for reliefs envisaged thereunder. The provisions of that Act cannot be resorted to for determining the locus standi of persons or individuals for moving the appropriate Government for abolition of the contract labour system. Various Acts operate in different fields and the question of locus srandi cannot be determined for the reliefs available under a statute by resorting to entirely different statotes operating in different fields.
2. It is contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that the 1st petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 2/4 wheel drive vehicles and automotive components; that the company employs a large number of workman who are directly or indirectly connected with the manufacturing processes, or are employed to perform incidental functions, such as accounts, clerical jobs and sales; that the company also engages workmen to perform functions which are entirely unrelated to or unconnected with its manufacturing activities, such as house-keeping, sweeping, garden maintenance, etc.; that these tasks are neither incidental to the company's main functions nor are its employees or supervisors trained to efficiently perform such functions; that the company gets such jobs done by specialised contractors who supply not only the expertise for the job but also the requisite labour; that in the year 1979, the recognised union of the company's employees demanded that the house-keeping and lavatory cleaning functions be contracted out and that all company workmen engaged is these jobs be redeployed in other areas; that the company acceded to the request of the union and contract labour system was introduced for house-keeping and lavatory cleaning in or about the year 1979 or 1980; and that the General Industries Kamgar Union (respondent No. 3) demanded abolition of the contract labour system vide its letter dated January 20, 1984 and January 21, 1984.
The matter was examined by the State Advisory Labour Board who advised abolition of contract labour. The notification is, inter alia, challenged on the following grounds:-
"a) That the impugned notification is ex-facie misconceived, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Honourable Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
b) That the impugned notification is ex facie bad at law and unsustainable, inasmuch as the various factors listed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 10 were not even considered by the Government or the State Advisory Board before recommending abolition. Had the respondents cared to consider the requirements of section 10(2) of the said Contract Labour Act, they would have realised that the primary factors which are required to be considered are the wage levels, benefits and service conditions obtaining for contract workmen in the establishment. It is only if these are found to be deficient with reference to wage levels and service conditions in the concerned region, that a further enquiry in respect of the factors set out in sub-section (2) of section 10 can be embarked upon. In the instant case, neither the Board nor the Government cared to examine the service conditions of the contractors' workmen in the petitioners' factory, and the impugned notification is therefore clearly vitiated;
c) That indeed, the impugned notification is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable inasmuch as the relevant preconditions for exercise of the power under section 10(1) were not made out. The 1st and 2nd respondents also acted without jurisdiction since they failed to examine the relevant and germane materials placed before them by the petitioners, and instead placed reliance upon patently irrelevant, extraneous and immaterial factors;
d) That the Board as well as the State Government ex facie erred in abolishing contract labour in house keeping and sweeping operations even though the wage levels, additional b
