SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Ori) 783

High Court Of Orissa
P. K. MOHANTY, J. P. MISHRA
BISHRA STONE AND LIME CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
O. J. C.  9985  Of  1993
Decided On : 12/22/2006

Advocates Appeared:
D.MOHAPATRA, S.K.PADHI, S.PARIDA

The determination of the appropriate Government in relation to a mine, as contemplated in Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act, is the Central Government, not the State Government.

Headnote:

Contract Labour - Validity of Notification - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10 (1)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a mining company, challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Government of India under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting employment of contract labour for transportation of limestone and dolomite from mines to the factory.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appropriate Government in relation to a mine, as contemplated in Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act, is the Central Government, not the State Government. The impugned notification was deemed valid and not illegal, arbitrary, or beyond the powers conferred under the statute on the Central government.

Issues: Validity of the notification under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

Ratio Decidendi: The activities of transportation of minerals from the mines to the factory were deemed to be incidental to and closely connected with the mining operation, falling within the purview of the Act. The court also found no violation of statutory provisions in consulting the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board before issuing the notification.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to cost.

P. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta and work-site at Biramitrapur in the district of Sundargarh where mining operations are carried out, calls in question the validity of the notification dated March 17, 1993 (Annexure-1) issued by the Government of India under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioner's case in short is that it is a mining industry having an existing workforce of 4200 in the tribal belt of Biramitrapur in the district of Sundargarh and 95 per cent of the workforce belong to the Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe Community. The Company's main industrial activity is to mine flux grade lime stone and dolomite and sell to the various steel Plants. The mining operation is spread over on an area of around 7 kilometers at biramitrapur. The breaking of lime stone and dolomite is done by mining workers on suitable mining faces and transported either directly to the railway wagons in case of sized stone or led to the crushing plants in case of boulders for converting into sized stone. The transportation required and done for the purpose of production and despatch of the Mines is of the types (a) transportation of sized stone from the mining faces into railway wagons; (b) transportation of sized stone from the loading platform to railway wagons; (c) transportation of boulders from mining faces to the crushing plants; (d) transportation of sized stone converted from boulders into the railway wagon or loading plants and (e) transportation of reject stone and spoils from the mining faces for development of working face.

( 2 ) THE notification Annexure-1 is challenged mainly on the grounds (a) that the Central Government had no authority or jurisdiction to regulate employment of contract labour relating to the transport of lime stone and dolomite in view of Section 2 (l) (ii) of the Contract labour (Regulations and Abolitions) Act, 1970 as well as Section 2 (l) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act since according to the petitioner, the expression 'appropriate Government' defined therein could not be the Central government but the State Government, (b) before issuing the impugned notification, the Central Government has failed to take into consideration the mandatory requirement contained in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 10 (2) of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as "clra Act') which provides that the appropriate Government shall take into consideration if the work is perennial in nature, if the work is ordinarily done through regular workmen in that establishment or establishments similar thereto, or whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of wholetime workmen, (c) the notification having been issued with immediate effect without giving opportunity to the principal employer as well as the contractor to make alternative arrangement with regard to machinery deployed, process of mining adopted and several other like activities, the same is bad in law and liable to be struck down. It is submitted that the system of contract labour as such is not intended to be totally prohibited or abolished. The intention of the Act is more regulatory than prohibitory. The object and reasons indicate that the contract labour should be abolished wherever it is practicable, but before issuing any such notification prohibiting employment of contract labour the appropriate Government is. bound. to have regard not only to the conditions of work and benefit provided to the contract labour but other relevant factors such as whether the work is perennial in nature or not, as to what is the practice in other similar establishments apart from the factors enumerated under Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 10. The petitioner's firm has provided facilities to the contract labour at par with the direct employees and the wages a













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top