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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Pasayat, J.
BASANTA KUMAR MOHANTY - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
C.R.No. 550 of 1987
Decided On : 08-07-1991

Advocates Appeared:
G. Rath, S.K. Mund and D.P. Das, for the Appellant; Additional Standing Counsel, for the Respondent

A workman is deemed to be employed as contract labour when he is hired in or in connection with a particular work of the principal employer.

Headnote:

CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - SECTION 12 - DEFINITION OF CONTRACT LABOUR - SECURITY GUARDS ENGAGED BY CONTRACTOR NOT HIRED FOR ANY PARTICULAR JOB - NOT CONTRACT LABOUR - CONVICTION U/S 24 NOT MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the Director of a security services company, was convicted under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, for engaging security guards without a license. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with a principal employer to supply security guards, and that these guards were contract labour and therefore required a license under the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the petitioner had hired any particular person for engagement with the principal employer's work. The court also found that the evidence showed that the principal employer had no control over the security guards employed by the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the security guards engaged by the petitioner were contract labour within the meaning of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a workman is deemed to be employed as contract labour when he is hired in or in connection with a particular work of the principal employer. The court found that the security guards engaged by the petitioner were not hired for any particular job, and therefore they were not contract labour.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - A short but interesting question whether prosecution of petitioner u/s 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act') is justified arises in this revision application.

2. Background facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:

Petitioner is the Director in charge of Security and Detective Services (India) Limited. The said concern is hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor'. According to the prosecution, contractor and consequentially petitioner was liable for prosecution in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Prosecution report was submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer and Inspector under the Act alleging that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Talcher Thermal Power Station Expansion Main Building Division, Talcher (described herinafter as 'principal employer') for engagement of security guards; these guards were contract labour and therefore, contractor was required to take licence under the Contract Act, and having not done so violated Section 12 of the Act.

3. Petitioner refuted the allegation on the ground that the Act had no application to it and therefore, the prescculion as launched was not maintainable in law. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talcher (in short 'S.D. J.M.') and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhen-kanal did not accept the petitioner's contention and held that the Act had application and therefore, conviction u/s 24 was in order.

4. For resolution of the dispute involved, it is meet to refer to definitions of 'workman', 'contract labour' and 'contractor' as given in the Act. They are as follows:

Workman:

"Workman' means 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, but does not include any such person-

(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or

(c) who is an out-worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purpose of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the outworker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer.

Contract Labour:

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;

Contractor:

'contractor', in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacuture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;":

A workman shall be deemed to be employed as a contract labour when he is hired in or in connection with the concerned work by or through a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Primary aspect, therefore, to be considered in a case of this nature is whether the concerned workman was hired in or in connection with principal employer's work by or through a contractor. Stand of the prosecution is that the contractor entered into agreement with the principal employer for supply of certain security guards for a price and therefore, the engaged persons were contract labourers.

5. Stro







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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top