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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G.B. Patnaik, D.M. Patnaik, JJ.
TATA REFRACTORIES LTD. AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 1846 of 1987
Decided On : 30-10-1991

Advocates Appeared:
Govind Das, Sitakant Patnaik and S.K. Pandhi, for the Appellant; Ashok Mohanty and Standing Counsel (Central), for the Respondent

The Central Government must comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, including consultation with the Central Board and consideration of relevant factors, before issuing a notification prohibiting contract labour.

Headnote:

CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - SECTION 10 - Notification prohibiting employment of contract labour in fireclay mines - Validity - Consultation with Central Board and consideration of relevant factors mandatory - Non-compliance vitiates notification.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of fire-bricks and other refractory materials, challenged the notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting the employment of contract labour in fireclay mines, alleging non-application of mind and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Central Government failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10(2) of the Act, which mandates consultation with the Central Board and consideration of relevant factors before issuing a notification prohibiting contract labour. The court found that the Central Government did not produce any material to demonstrate that the relevant factors were taken into account, rendering the notification invalid.

Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 before issuing the notification prohibiting contract labour in fireclay mines. 2. Whether the notification is valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which mandates consultation with the Central Board and consideration of relevant factors before issuing a notification prohibiting contract labour. The court held that the Central Government's failure to comply with these mandatory requirements rendered the notification invalid.

Final Decision: The court quashed the notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour in fireclay mines, as it was issued without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - The notification of the Central Government dated February 4, 1987 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in the fireclay mines of the country, is under challenge in this writ application. The main ground of attack is that the appropriate authority has not applied its mind to the relevant conditions stipulated under the Act before issuing the notification and accordingly, the impugned notification being a product of non-application of mind is illegal and invalid.

2. The petitioners assert that the Tata Refractories Limited is engaged in manufacture and production of fire-bricks and other refractory materials and the Talabasta Fireclay Mine situated near Banki is a captive mine of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have engaged two contractors with the job of removal of overburden, raising and stacking of fire-clay and dewatering of the fireclay mine. According to the petitioners, though Section 10 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government in consultation with the Central Board or the State Board, as the case may be, to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, but before exercising the said power, the pre-conditions contained in Section 10 must be complied with. But the appropriate Government in the present case before issuing notification under Annexure-1 did not take the relevant factors into consideration and without any application of mind, issued the notification in question. In course of hearing of the writ application, Mr. Das appearing for the petitioners, apart from reiterating the stand taken in the writ application, has also urged that there was no report of the Central Board and there had been no consultation and further no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before the notification in question.

3. The Union Government has tiled a counter affidavit and the stand of the Union in the counter affidavit is that in view of the object of the Act and power having been conferred u/s 10, the Union Government was wholly justified in issuing the notification keeping the socio-economic condition in view. It was also alleged that the working condition of the contract labour in the fireclay mines was found to be not satisfactory for which the Central Government reconstituted the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board which in its turn constituted a Committee to go into the question of working of contract labour system in mica, magnesium, gypsum, magnesite and fireclay mines. The said Committee discussed the matter and incorporated its recommendations which were ultimately accepted by the Central Advisory Board and thereupon in consultation with the Board, the Central Government issued the notification.

4 In view of the rival stands of the parties, the short question that arises for our consideration is whether the exercise of power by the Central Government u/s 10 of the Act and issuance of the notification under Annexure-1 can be said to be invalid and inoperative as there has been no compliance with the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act. To appreciate the contention better, it is appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 10 of the Act hereunder:

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under Sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as-

(a) whether the p















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