Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, C.J., K.R.MOHAPATRA, J.
M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Labour - Opp. Party
OJC No. 5277 of 1994, W.A. Nos. 355, 356 & 357 of 2015
Decided On : 28-09-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Kumar Bose, Asst. Solicitor General, Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Padhi, CGC, Mr. Srada P. Sarangi, Adv., Mr. Satyajit Mohanty, Adv.
The Central Government is the appropriate authority under the Contract Labour Act for regulating employment in mining operations, including transport activities, as affirmed by statutory definitions and prior judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10(1) - Constitutionality of notification prohibiting employment of contract labour in manganese and limestone/dolomite mining - The petitioner challenged the validity of notifications issued by the Central Government. The court found that the appropriate Government for these operations, including transport, was the Central Government, affirming the validity of the notifications under the Act. (Paras 4, 16, 18)
(B) Appropriate Government - The determination of the appropriate Government was crucial in determining the jurisdiction for regulating employment under the CLRA Act, specifically regarding mining operations and associated activities. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in manganese mining, claimed the notifications were unjust, arguing the activities did not fall under the definition of mining, and thus the State Government should be the appropriate authority. The opposite party contended the Central Government was within its rights as the appropriate authority to enact the notifications after necessary consultations.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded the notifications issued by the Central Government were valid under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, emphasizing the comprehensive regulatory framework governing contract labour.
Issues: The key issues included the determination of appropriate Government relating to mining operations, the validity of notifications on contract labour, and adherence to mandatory statutory procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Central Government was the appropriate authority based on the definitions and legislative intent of the CLRA Act and ID Act, reinforcing that transportation activities were incidental to mining operations, thus validly covered by the notifications.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed; Writ Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identity of questions and notifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of petitioner’s operations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner's argument against jurisdiction. (Para 5) |
| 4. union of india's defense of notification. (Para 6) |
| 5. precedents supporting central government's stance. (Para 7) |
| 6. argument on appropriate government definition. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. contention on judicial review of notifications. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. relevant definitions in mining laws. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 9. analysis of prior judgments and their impact. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 10. final dismissal of petitions. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Rafiq, C.J.
Since the writ petition (OJC No.5277 of 1994) and all the three Writ Appeals (W.A. Nos. 355, 356, & 357 of 2015) arise out of identical Notifications, and involve identical questions of law, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Under challenge in OJC No. 5277 of 1994, filed by the petitioner-M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. is validity of the Notification dated 23.03.1993 under Annexure-1, issued by the opposite party-Union of India in exercise of its power conferred by Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter in short called ‘the CLRA Act’), prohibiting employment of contract labour in works specified the schedule therein, in the Manganese Mines in the country, with immediate effect, in relation to the following:
“1. Raising of mineral, its breaking, seizing and sorting;
2. Screening and jigging at mine site; and
3. Loading and unloading and transporting at mine site.”
The Writ Appeal No. 357 of 2015 has been filed by the Union of India, questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 03.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJC No. 2172 of 1994, vide which writ petition filed by M/s. Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation (P) Ltd. was allowed in terms of the judgment passed by him in OJC Nos. 9630 & 9632 of 1993, holding that the said Notification dated 23.03.1993 (which is also subject matter of challenge in above OJC No. 5277 of 1994), issued by the Union of India under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act, abolishing the contract labour system, is not applicable to the petitioner’s establishment-Manganese Mines.
The Writ Appeals No. 355 & 356 of 2015, also filed by the Union of India, questions correctness of the common judgment dated 03.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid OJC Nos. 9630 & 9632 of 1993, vide which the writ petitions filed by M/s. Patnaik Minerals (P) Ltd. and M/s. B.D. Pattnaik Ltd. respectively, were allowed holding that Notification dated 17.03.1993 issued by the Union of India under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act, abolishing the contract labour system, is not applicable to the petitioners’ establishment, being not passed by the appropriate Government i.e., State Government. The impugned Notification dated 17.03.1993 challenged in the said two writ petitions (OJC Nos. 9630 & 9632 of 1993), prohibits contract labour in respect of limestone/dolomite mines, in relation to following activities:-
“1. Raising of minerals including breaking, seizing and sorting of limestone/dolomite, and
2. Transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumper, conveyors and transportation from mine site to factory;”
3. In order to encapsulate the questions of law involved in these cases, the factual matrix and contentions of the parties for the sake of convenience need be delineated separately.
FACTUAL MATRIX & SUBMISIONS IN OJC No. 5277 of 1994
4. The case set up by the petitioner, M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. in the writ petition in brief is that it is a Corporation under the Government of Orissa and has extensive mining operation of Manganese Ore in the districts of Keonjhar and Rayagada. Manganese is one of the basic raw-materials required for manufacturing Iron and Steel. The petitioner- Corporation engages contract labour for raising of
