Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAY, C.J., REDDY, DWIVEDI, GOSWAMI & SARKARIA, JJ.
M/s Gammon India Ltd etc - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.- Respondents
Writ Petitions Nos. 202/73, 413/71, 92, 320, 330, 375, 391, 509 and 626, 627/72 & 114, 315-316/73.
Held;
(a) The application of the Act in respect of pending work of construction is not unreasonable. The pendency of contract is not a relevant consideration. The subject matter of legislation is not contract; it is Contract Labour. There is no retrospective operation. The crucial point is that the interests of the workmen will be remedied by the object of the Act. The interests are minimum labour welfare. There is no unreasonableness in the measure. (Para 18)
(b) The Fees prescribed for registration of licence and renewal of licence do not amount to levy of tax. The Government gives service in regard to licence and registration. There is no arbitrary power or excessive delegation of legislative authority. The Act and the Rules provide ample guide lines as to grant of licence. Section 15 of the Act confers a right of appeal on any person who is aggrieved by any order refusing a Licence or its revocation or suspension. (Para 19)
(c) The various measures which are challenged namely the provisions of Canteen, rest rooms, facilities for supply of drinking water, latrines, urinals, first aid facilities are amenities for dignity of human labour. The measure is in the interest of the public. There is a rational relation between impugned Act and object to be achieved. The classification is not arbitrary. There is no violation of Article 14. The legislature has made uniform laws for all contractors. Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and Rules 25(2) (ii), 25(2) (v)(b) are valid. (Para 21)
It will be a question of statute to 'Statute, from fact to fact as to whether absence of a provision for appeal makes the statute bad. The provision for appeal is not in flexible. The absence of a provision for appeal is not unreasonable in the context of the provision here. (Para 28)
The provision for forfeiture (Sec. 14) is Constitutionally valid. (Para 32)
(d) Section 34 of the Act does not amount to excessive delegation. (1967) I.S.C.R. 15 referred to) (Para 35)
An intervener can not raise points which are not convassed by the petitioners in the pleadings, so validity of section 28 is not decided.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (37 of 1970), Section 2 (c)-Contractor-scope of.
Held, that in Banking company which is an establishment which carries a business at Delhi and employs the petitioners to construct a building at Allahabad, the petitioners are, in relation to the establishment, contractors who undertake to produce a given result for the Bank. The construction of the building is the work of the establishment. (Paras 9 & 16)
Ray, C J.
1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 referred to as the Act and of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules and Rules of the States of Rajasthan and Maharashtra.
2. The petitioners carryon the business of contractors for construction of roads, building, weigh bridges and dams.
3. The Act requires contractor to take out licences. The Act also imposes certain duties and liabilities on the contractors.
4. The Act defines in section 2(c) a "contractor" in relation to an establishment to mean a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a subcontractor.
5. The other definitions relevant to the meaning of a contractor are establishment, principal employer and workman.
"Establishment" as defined in section 2(e) of the Act means (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on.
"Principal employer" as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act means (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf, (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named, (iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine the person so named, and (iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment.
"Workman" is defined in section 2 (i) of the Act to mean any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or un-skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied.
6. Section 2 (b) of the Act states that a workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" In or in connection with the work of an establishment, when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.
7. The petitioners contend that they are not contractors within the definition of the Act. They advance two reasons. First, the work of the petitioner is not any part of the work of the principal employer nor is it the work "in connection with the work of the establishment", namely, principal employer. Second, the work of the petitioners is normally not done in the premises of the "establishment" of the principal employer.
8. Relying on the definition, counsel for the petitioners contended that establishment means any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on and, therefore, the workmen employed by the petitioners are not contract labour because they are not employed in connection with the work of the establishment. The work of the establishment is, according to the petitioners, not only at the place where the business, trade, industry of the establishment is carried on but also the actual business or trade or industry of the establishment. The entire emphasis is placed by the petitioners on the words “work” of any establishment." By way of illustration it is said that if a banking company which is an establishment which carries on its business at Delhi employs the petitioners to construct a building at Allahabad the building to be constructed is not the work of the bank. It is said that the only word of the bank as an establishment is banking work and, th
SupremeToday
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
