Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
VINEET SARAN, K.R. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Bolani Ores Mines, Raw materials, Division (SAIL), Barbil, represented through its Chief Personnel Manager, Barbil – Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, represented through its Secretary, New Delhi & others – Opp. Parties
O.J.C. No. 82 OF 1998
Decided On : 25-04-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, Senior Advocate M/s. B. Mohanty, T.K. Patnaik, A. Patnaik, S. Patnaik, R.P. Ray & B.S. Ray
For the Opp. Parties :Addl. Government Advocate M/s. Y.S.N. Murty & P.N. Mishra
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the regularization of contract labour, and there must be a master and servant relationship for contemplating an industrial dispute for regularization.
Headnote:
Contract Labour - Regularization of Workers - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10 - Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - [Section 10 of the CLRA Act] - [Summary of the Acts and Sections discussed by the court] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which provides for the prohibition of employment of contract labour in an establishment. The court highlighted the requirement of a notification in the official gazette for prohibition of contract labour and emphasized that without such notification, no industrial dispute for regularization of contract labour can be said to exist or be apprehended under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Government in deciding the abolition of contract labour.
Fact of the Case:
The Management of Bolani Ores Mines, Raw Materials Division (SAIL), Barbil filed a writ petition assailing the order of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, which made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the regularization of contract labourers engaged through contractors. The Management contended that the reference was not maintainable as there was no notification prohibiting contract labour in the establishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the Industrial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference for regularization of contract labour. It also emphasized the requirement of a master and servant relationship between the Management and the contract labour for contemplating an industrial dispute for regularization.
Issues: The key issues were the maintainability of the reference made by the Government of India for adjudication of the regularization of contract labour and the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 10 of the CLRA Act and relevant case laws, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Government in deciding the prohibition of contract labour and the requirement of a master and servant relationship for contemplating an industrial dispute for regularization.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, and the consequential notice issued by the Industrial Tribunal, directing the appropriate Government to reconsider the matter in light of the discussions made in the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the Management of Bolani Ores Mines, Raw Materials Division (SAIL), Barbil assailing the order dated 30.10.1996 (Annexure-5) passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication, which is quoted here under:
“Whether the contractors’ workers engaged through M/s Allied Transport & M/s. Ores India should be regularized by the management of Bolani Ores Mines, RMD/SAIL, Bolani in line with clause 3.5.1.2 of the NJCS agreement dated 18.5.1995? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2. The genesis, in a nut shell, that gives rise to this writ petition is that the Management of Bolani Ores Mines is an establishment of the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short ‘SAIL’) at Bolani in the District of Keonjhar, Odisha. It extracts Iron Ores from its captive mines and supplies the same to different industrial undertaking of SAIL through out India. The Raw Materials Division of Bolani Ores Mines (for short ‘the Management’) engages different transporters for extraction and transportation of Ores from its captive mines. The Labour Contractors also supply contract labourers for carrying out different jobs of the Management at different points of time. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2, namely, Barbil Workers Union through its General Secretary gave a strike notice under Section 22 (1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the I.D. Act’) raising a demand to regularize the contract labourers being engaged through contractors. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela-opposite party No. 4, who vide letter dated 12.11.1995 had sent a notice to the Management-petitioner to attend the conciliation proceeding in the matter of prohibition/abolition of contract labour system and regularization of contract labourers under the Management-petitioner. Pursuant to the said notice, the representatives of both the petitioner and opposite party no.2-Barbil Workers Union appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela-opposite party no.4. Conciliation being failed, the Assistant Labour Commissioner communicated the failure report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India-opposite party no.1. The Government of India in Ministry of Labour, in turn, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha for adjudication of the aforesaid reference. Consequently, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar initiated I.D. Case No. 42 of 1996 (C) on his file and sent notices to the parties concerned including the Management-petitioner to appear and file written statement along with relevant documents vide his notice dated 21.07.1997 (Annexure-6). The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of opposite party no.1 in referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the reference under Annexure-5 as well as consequential notice (Annexure-6) issued by the Industrial Tribunal to the petitioner to appear and file written statement for adjudication of the reference, has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the reference made by the Government of India– opposite party no.1 is not maintainable and the same is an outcome of total non-application of mind. Neither any industrial dispute exists nor apprehended, which warrants the impugned reference for adjudication. The opposite party no.2-Union had raised a demand for regularization of contract labourers under the Management-petitioner, who were engaged through different contractors to carry out transportation contracts. He further submitted that the question of regularization of contract labour only arises, when the appropriate Government prohibits engagement of contract labour in an establishment by a notification in the official gazette under Section 10 (1) of the Contra
