- (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the two notices dated June 26, 1995 and July 6, 1995 by which the State Contract Labour Advisory Committee proposed to visit the factory of the petitioner on the ground that the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner is the Central Government and as such, the State Government cannot undertake to exercise the power conferred under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "1970 Act").
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot be any spot visit by the said State Contract Labour Advisory Committee since Section 10 of the 1970 Act does not provide for any such spot visit. He also contends that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Central) Rules, 1971 also do not provide anything with regard to the manner as to how the authority under Section 10 of the 1970 Act will be exercised. In the absence of any such provision, the Authority has no power to make a spot visit of the factory. He relies on the definition of "Appropriate Government" under Section 2(a) of the 1970 Act. According to him, though the meaning of 'Central Government' is borrowed from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but still, it should be the Central Government when it relates to an authority to be exercised under the 1970 Act. No delegation of power under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act would empower the State Government to exercise the power under Section 10 of the 1970 Act since the 1970 Act does not enjoin any power of delegation. Thus, the delegation of power under the Industrial Disputes Act is confined to the exercise of powers under the Industrial Disputes Act and not beyond that. Therefore, according to him, the impugned notices should be quashed and the Writ Petition should be allowed.
(3.) Mr. Rameshwar Bhattacharyya appearing for the Trade Union sought to intervene on the ground that it was their right which was being affected in this Writ Petition.;