Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Murarf Mohan Dutt discharging the three Civil Rules obtained by the three sets of appellants inter-alia, challenging the enforcement of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, against the appellants in respect of any of their vessels or any office or establishment or alleged establishment. The appellants of F.M.A, No. 131 of 1977 and F.M.A, No. 1 of 1977 are said to be the owners of ships and their ships carry cargo and passengers between various ports and the course of their voyages their ships call at various ports of India including Calcutta. The appellant No. 1 in F.M.A No. 28 of 1977 is a steamer agent at Calcutta of the American Export Lines Incorporated. The appellant No. 2 is the Shipping Manager of the appellant No.l. The ships of the principal of the appellant No. 2 from time to time call at the port of Calcutta. The Registering Officer and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Calcutta had served notices upon each of the appellants stating that with effect from 10th February, 1971 all the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had come into force. The Central Government had fixed 31st December, 1972 as the date before which every principal employer of an establishment to which the Act applied shall make an application to the said Registering Officer for registration of the establishment. The Registering Officer by his said letter advised the appellants to take necessary action to get their establishments registered forthwith or to show-cause within 7 days as to why legal action should not be taken against them under the said Act. The appellants had written separate letters to the Registering Officer inter alia contending that the said Act was not applicable to them and as such registration of their establishments was not required under the Act. There was further correspondence between the parties. Thereafter, the appellants had filed writ petitions in this Court and three Rules were issued. As already stated, M.M. Dutt, J. discharged the said Rules and against the said judgment these appeals have been preferred.
(2.) The preamble of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 states that it is an Act to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for their abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 provides that the Act shall apply:- (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months as contract labour ; (b) to every contractor who employees or who employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months twenty or more workmen. Under the proviso to said sub-section the appropriate government has been authorised to apply the provisions of the Act to establishments and contractors employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified. Sub-section (5) of Section 1 excludes application of the said Act to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed. Under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 1 the appropriate government may decide the question whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature and its decision shall be final. Explanation to sub-section (5) specified the work which shall not be deemed to be of an intermittent nature. Section 2(1) (e) of the Act contains the following definition of the expression "establishment":- (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on.
(3.) Mr. Ginwalla learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted before us that none of the appellants has an establishment within the meaning of the Act. The ships owned by the appellants of F.M. A.No. 28 of 1977 and F.M.A. No.l of 1977 and the ships of which the appellant No. 1 of F M.A. No. 28 of 1977 is the Agent cannot be treated as the establishments within the meaning of the Act. When their ships are in port, their cargo are unloaded and loaded and generally various works have to be carried out on the said vessels. Such work, apart from loading and unloading of cargo include, repairs, keeping watch, supplying fuel and stores etc. The work of loading and unloading of the cargo is normally carried out by stevedores who for the purpose employ workers registered by the Dock Labour Board under the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. The work of repairs is normally entrusted to ship repairing companies and petty repairs are carried out by the labours engaged by contractors. According to the appellants such workers are not of a permanent but of an intermittent nature and such works are carried out actually on Board or in the neighbourhood of a vessel in the premises which are under the control and management of the Calcutta Port Trust.;