- (1.) This writ application is directed against the notification No.1034(E) dated October 14, 1999 issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Authority Regulation and Abolition) at 1970 prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the jobs, processes or operations mentioned in the schedule annexed to the above notification in the establishment of Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Burnpur, West Bengal.
(2.) The facts of this case in a nutshell are as under:- The petitioner company was nationalized in the year 1972 and it became a subsidiary of steel authority of India Ltd., Government of India Undertaking. It was engaged in manufacturing and selling Iron and Steel Process. By a notification dated February 9, 1980 the Government of West Bengal, in exercise of power conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) prohibited employment of contract labour in the processes or operations specified in the schedule annexed to the above notification in the establishment of the petitioner company with effect from April 1, 1970. Consequent thereupon contract labourers specified in the schedule to the aforesaid notification were absorbed in the role of the petitioner company. Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed by the groups of contract labourers engaged by the petitioner company praying for orders for the purpose of their absorption as regular employees of the petitioner company claiming that the jobs performed by them were of perennial nature. Those writ petitions were allowed. But on appeal, a Division Bench of this court was pleased to set aside those judgments allowing the appeal of the petitioner company with the direction that the petitioner company should go on making investigation with regard to those petitioners in the process regularisation of their services.
(3.) After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of AIR India Vs. Union of India, 1997 AIR(SC) 645, several writ petitions were filed claiming that the writ petitioners were performing notified jobs under the petitioner company. By a judgment dated May 11, 1999 delivered in W.P. No.13024(W) of 1998 with W.P. No.11932(W) of 1998, the writ petitioners of the above writ applications were directed to make comprehensive representation to the Central Government(Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of India) for abolition of contract labour giving all particulars therein in support of their contentions as also the Central Government was directed to come to a decision after consultation with the Central Board in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners and the company by passing a reasoned an speaking order. The petitioner company preferred appeals being nos. MAT 1704 of 1999 and MAT 1705 of 1999 against the aforesaid judgment and both the appeals were disposed of by the common judgment dated August 12, 1999 fixing a time frame within which the appropriate Government was to conclude the proceeding under the said Act taking final decision by September 17, 1999. In compliance of the above direction the impugned notification dated October 14, 1999 was issued. It is submitted by Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner company, that the impugned notification was issued without complying with the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section10 of the said Act. It is submitted by him that under the above provisions the appropriate government, before issuing any notification under sub-section(1) of Section10 of the said Act, should have regard to the condition of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in an establishment and other relevant factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section(2) of Section 10 of the said Act. In doing so the appropriate government should consult with the Central Advisory Board or a State Board, as the case may be. According to Mr. Gupta the impugned notification was issued by the Central Government and as such the consultation with the Central Advisory Board was necessary. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act the purpose of constituting Central Advisory Board was to obtain advise on such matters arising out of the administration of the said Act as might be referred to it. According to him the impugned notification was issued in violation of the aforesaid provisions. Mr. Gupta relied upon the decisions of Banwarilal Vs. State of Bihar, 1961 AIR(SC) 849, Swrashati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1975 AIR(SC) 460 and Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, 2001 7 SCC 1 in support of his submissions.;