Bhagwati, J. - (1.) The issue of Indian Express dated 26th August 1982 carried a news item that a large number of migrant workmen from different States including the State of Orissa were working on the Salal Hydro Electric Project in difficult conditions and they were denied the benefits of various labour laws and were subjected to exploitation by the contractors to whom different portions of the work were entrusted by the Central Government. The People's Union for Democratic Rights thereupon addressed a letter to Mr. Justice D. A. Desai enclosing a copy of the news report and requesting him to treat the letter as a writ petition so that justice may be done to the poor labourers working in the Salal Hydro Electric Project. The letter was placed before a Bench of this Court and it was treated as a writ petition and by an order dated 10th Sept., 1982 this Court directed that the Union of India, the State of Orissa, the Labour Commissioner Orissa at New Delhi, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Labour Commissioner (J. and K.) should be shown as respondents to the writ petition and issued notice to the Union of India the State of Orissa and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Orissa at New Delhi to show cause against the writ petition. This Court also directed the Labour Commissioner, Jammu to visit the site of the Salal Hydro Electric Project and "ascertain (i) whether there are any bonded labourers employed on this project and if so, to furnish their names; (ii) whether there are any migrant workers who have come from other States; (iii) what are the conditions in which the workers are living; and (iv) whether the labour laws enacted for their benefit are being observed and implemented. Pursuant to this order made by the Court, the Labour Commissioner Jammu visited the site of the Salal Hydro Electric Project and made an interim report on 11th October, 1982 and this was followed by a final report dated 15th Oct., 1982. The writ petition thereafter came up for hearing, on 3rd November, 1982 and on that date, the Court pointed out that the Secretary. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the State of Orissa, the Labour Commissioner Orissa at New Delhi, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Labour Commissioner (J and K) had already been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 but since the reports made by the Labour Commissioner, Jammu disclosed that the Salal Hydro Electric Project was being carried out by the Government of India, the Court directed that the Union of India in the Labour Ministry as also the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) may also be added as respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition and that notice of the writ petition shall go immediately to them along with copies of the two reports. The Court also directed that the Union of India and the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) should file their affidavit or affidavits within two weeks from the date of the order dealing with the various averments made in the two reports of the Labour Commissioner, Jammu and particularly the final report made by him, since the final report disclosed prima facie that there were certain violations of labour laws committed by the Central Government and the contractors. The Court also directed following its decision given on 18th September, 1982 in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India that "the Union of India and the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) shall ensure that hereafter minimum wage is paid directly by the Central Government or the contractors as the case may be, to the workmen employed by them without the intervention of any sub-contractors or jamadars or khatedars and without any deduction whatsoever except such as may be authorised statutorily. The reference to sub-contractors in this order will be confined only to those sub-contractors who have not been licenced under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1956 because if any such subcontractors have been licenced, they would fall within the definition of contractor and would therefore be liable for payment of minimum wage directly to the workers without any deduction. The Union of India and the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) will also, in the meanwhile, ensure that Sections 16 to 19 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read with the relevant rules made under that Act are complied with, as the same are mandatory and the Central Government is the appropriate authority to enforce the provisions of those sections." It appears that the Union of India and the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) were not able to file their affidavit or affidavits within the time granted to them with the result that the time had to be extended twice and ultimately an affidavit dated 14th December 1982 was made by one H. S. Raju, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and it was filed in Court on behalf of the Union of India. It was on the basis of the two reports made by the Labour Commissioner, Jammu and the affidavit in reply filed by H. S. Raju on behalf of the Union of India along with certain other documents produced at the hearing that the writ petition was argued before us.
(2.) The Salal Hydro Electric Project is a power project undertaken by the Government of India with a view to increasing the generation of electric power in the country by utilising the waters of river Chenab. It is a gigantic project located near village Salal in Jammu and the Government of India has entrusted it to the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation for execution on 'agency basis'. There are certain portions of the work in connection with the Project which are being executed by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation itself through workmen directly employed by it, while certain other portions of the work are entrusted to contractors of whom the principal four are Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Gammon India Limited, T. R. Gupta Private Limited and Asia Foundation Construction Company. These contractors in their turn are doing a part of the work entrusted to them through workmen directly employed by them while a part of the work has been allotted by them to sub-contractors described as "piece wagers". The workmen employed by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation, the contractors and the sub-contractors are mostly from other States such as U. P., Bihar and Orissa. There is no uniform pattern of employment in regard to these workmen but so far as Oriya workmen are concerned, they are usually recruited by khatedars from their villages in Orissa and given advances before being taken for work. So also some Bihari workmen were found by the Labour Commissioner (J and K) to have received such advances before coming to the project site. Now the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Contract Labour Act) being applicable to the establishments pertaining to the project work, the Executive Engineers of the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation having supervision and control over the respective establishments are registered as principal employers and the contractors to whom different portion of the work are entrusted for execution, are licensed under the provisions of that Act. Since the project work is being carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the Central Government is the appropriate Government in relation to the establishments pertaining to the project, work and the contractors are licensed by the Licensing Officers appointed by the Central Government. The sub-contractors to whom different portions of the work are entrusted by the contractors, however, do not hold any licence, though they fall within the definition of the word. 'contractor' in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1956 and it is precisely in order to circumvent the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, that they are called 'piece wagers' instead of sub-contractors. The project work is thus carried out by workmen employed by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation or by contractors licensed under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act or by sub-contractors who are euphemistically described as 'piece wagers'.
(3.) The question raised in this writ petition is whether the workmen employed on the project work are ensured the rights and benefits provided to them under various labour laws such as Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. So far as the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act) is concerned, the final report of the Labour Commissioner (J and K) clearly shows that its provisions have not been implemented at all and the workmen are denied many of the benefits and advantages provided under it. This statement in the final report of the Labour Commissioner (J and K) is not denied on behalf of the Union of India, in the affidavit in reply made by H. S. Raju, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and the only explanation offered is that the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act though passed in 1979 did not come into force until 2nd October 1980 and the relevant notifications appointing various authorities under that Act were issued only in June, 1982 and that was the reason why "no action could be taken by the officers of CIRM earlier". It is also averred in the affidavit in reply that "most of the workers from other States have gone to Salal Project for work on their own and are therefore strictly speaking not migrant workmen" within the meaning of the definition of that term contained in the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act. We do not think that this justification. given in the affidavit in reply for not ensuring the benefits and facilities provided under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act to at least some of the workmen and particularly Oriya workmen can be accepted as valid. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act was enacted with a view to eliminating abuses to which workmen recruited from one State and taken for work to another State were subjected by the contractors, sardars or khatedars recruiting them. The malpractices indulged in by the contractors, sardars or khatedars in regard to workmen recruited by them for work outside their State may be found briefly summarised as follows in the Statement of Objects and Reasons: "Though the Sardars promise at the time of recruitment that wages calculated on piece rate basis would be settled every month, the promise is not usually kept. Once the worker comes under the clutches of the contractor, he takes him to a far-off place on payment of railway fare only. No working hours are fixed for these workers and they have to work on all the days in a week under extremely bad working conditions. The provisions of the various labour laws are not being observed in their case and they are subjected to various malpractices." It was felt that since Inter-State migrant workmen are generally illiterate and unorganised and are by reason of their extreme poverty, easy victims of these abuses and malpractices, it was necessary to have a comprehensive legislation with a view to securing effective protection to Inter-State migrant workmen against their exploitation and hence the Inter-State migrant Workmen Act was enacted. This Act received the assent of the President on 11th June, 1979 but it was brought into force only on 2nd October 1980 by a notification issued under Section 1, sub-section (3). The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules) were also made by the Central Government and brought into force with effect from 2nd Oct., 1980. But, unfortunately, through the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act and the Central Inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules came into force from 2nd October, 1980, the bureaucratic apparatus for implementing the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules was not set up by the Central Government for a period of more than 20 months and it was only in the month of June, 1982 that the Central Government appointed various authorities such as Registering Officers, Licensing Officers and Inspectors. Even so we fail to see why the obligations of contractors set out in Section 12 and wages, welfare and other facilities provided in Sections 13 to 16 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act could not be made available to Inter-State migrant workmen employed in the project work and the Central Government as the appropriate Government could not enforce the same from and after 2nd Oct., 1980. When the Act and the Rules came into force with effect from 2nd October, 1980, the provisions contained in Section 12 and Ss. 13 to 16 became clearly applicable to the establishments pertaining to the project work and there was no justification for the Central Government to delay any longer the implementation of these provisions in so far as Inter-State migrant workmen, were concerned. The Central Government in any event ought to have enforced the provisions relating to registration of principal employers and licensing of contractors as also the provisions set out in Section 12 and Sections 13 to 16 from June, 1982 when the various authorities, contemplated under the Act were appointed by the Central Government. We do not think the Central Government can escape its obligation to enforce the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act on the plea that there are no Inter-State migrant workmen employed in the project work. The final report of the Labour Commissioner (J and K) clearly shows that Oriya workmen employed on the project site were recruited by khatedars from their villages in Orissa and brought to the project site for work and they would clearly be Inter-State migrant workmen within the definition of that term in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act. We would therefore direct the Central Government to take immediate steps for enforcement of the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act in regard to Inter-State migrant workmen employed, in the project work. The Central Government will at once proceed to identify 'Inter-State migrant workmen' from amongst the workmen employed in the project work and adopt necessary measures for ensuring to them the benefits and advantages provided under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act. We would like the Central Government to file an affidavit within one month from today setting out what steps have been taken for securing , implementation of the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act at project site, whether the executive engineers of the Central Government or the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation have been registered as principal employers under Section 4 and the contractors; sub-contractors or 'piece wagers', khatedars and sardars have been licensed under, S. 8; whether the contractors and sub-contractors or piece wagers are carrying out the obligations imposed upon them under Section, 12 and whether wages and allowances stipulated in Sections 13, 14 and 15 and other facilities provided in Section 16 are being made available, to the Inter-State migrant, workmen employed in the project work.;