Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3748 of 1999
PETITIONER:
LAND T. MC. NEIL LTD. ETC. ETC.
RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2001
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. VARIAVA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 (1) SCR 701
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under
Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970
[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] prohibiting the employment of
contract labour in the process of sweeping and scavenging in the
establishments/factories which are employing 50 or more Workmen. This
prohibition is without reference to class of establishment which is
involved of the conditions of work in a particular establishment. Under
Section 10 of the Act the Government is obliged to consult the Tamil Nadu
State Contract Labour Advisory Board [for short ’the Board’] before issuing
a notification in question. The appellants contended that there has been no
effective consultation with the Board inasmuch as the only occasion when
this aspect was considered was in the Sub-Committee meeting of the Board.
The Minutes of the meeting made available to the Court disclosed that it
recorded the views of the All India Manufacturers Organisation to the
effect that the sweepers and scavengers work not for more than 2 to 3 hours
daily and the view of the employees’ representatives was that sweepers and
scavengers are working for more than 120 days in a year. No decision as
such was made but it was noted that the Government should take a decision
in the matter. The said notification was challenged before the High Court
in a writ petition. The High Courts following its earlier decision in
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,
[1997] 3 LLN 495, dismissed the writ petition holding that the notification
had been issued after fully complying with the prescribed procedure under
Section 10 of the Act to prohibit employment of contract labour after
proper consultation with all relevant parties and evaluation of all
relevant factors and materials by the State Government. Following this
aforesaid decision, the writ petition filed by the petitioner also stood
dismissed. Hence these appeals.
The Division Bench of the High Court in the course of its order noticed
that apart from Sub-Committee report, to which reference has been made, the
Minutes of the 17th Meeting of the Board also disclosed that the Board has
elaborately considered the matter with reference to the question of issuing
a draft notification abolishing contract labour system in sweeping and
scavenging among other nature of work and though is appeared that a further
consideration by the Government was suggested during the course of
deliberations, the Board did not appear to have thought any need for
further consideration. On that basis the Division Bench took the view that
since the matter had been left for consideration of the Government by the
Board, with its report and Government had also considered the need and
necessity in the light of the requirements of the law as enumerated under
Section 10(2) of the Act to issue the notification in question, there is no
justification to interfere with the notification in question. Whereas at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
the time when the learned single Judge considered the matter the report of
the Sub-Committee was not available at all.
Before us in these appeals against the order of the High Court what is
principally contended is that (i) there is no effective consultation with
the Board by the Government before issuing the notifications in question,
and (ii) the Government did not have any relevant material otherwise and.
therefore, in the absence of relevant material the Government Could not
have issued any notification and thus calls for interference at our hands.
Consultation does not mean concurrence and the views of the Board are
ascertained for the purpose of assisting the Government in reaching its
conclusion on the matter one way or the other. The Government reached the
conclusion on the basis of nothing made on various aspects and the aspects
taken note of by the Government are as follows:
"(a) Whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or
necessary for the industry trade, business manufacture or occupation that
is carried on in the establishment.
(b) Whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient
duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade business
manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment Yes
(e) Whether it is done ordinarily through Can be done regular workmen
in that establishment through regular or an establishment similar
thereon. Workmen
(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of Whole-time
workmen.
What is set out in this format is what is contained in Section 10 of the
Act and is a mere repetition of the expression used therein. The question
posed indicate the provisions contained in the Section, while answers given
thereto are by monosyllables and it is not clear from the record available
as to whether the same were based on any material. In the 16th Meeting of
the Board, it is noted that "the members were also informed that as far as
sweepers and scavengers were concerned the matter would be examined and
necessary proposals sent to Government." In the 17th Meeting of the Board,
it was noted that various Sub-Committees have been formed in different
industries such as (a) Cement, (b) Paper, (c) Textiles, (d) Chemicals and
(e) Electricity Board and thereafter the draft notification abolishing
contract labour system in sweeping and scavenging was taken up for
consideration. While the view expressed on behalf of the Management is that
the sweepers and scavengers are not having 8 hours of work but they work
not more than 2 or 3 hours a day and since employing permanent workmen is
not economically viable, they are employing contract labour in this type of
work and therefore, the Government needed to examine whether the
requirements of Section 10(2)(a) to (d) of the Act have been fulfilled
before finalising the notifications. While the representatives of the All
India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) took the stand that if the work is done
for more than 120 days it has to be considered as being of intermittent
nature and also stated that because of the contractual nature of the work
they cannot fully get benefits of employment. The Chief Engineer of the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board pointed out that regular workmen are not
willing to do this type of work and requested the Government not to proceed
with the notification. The representative of AITUC stated that no further
examination is necessary by the Board and notification could be issued. His
view was supported by another member representing Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS).
The Chairman stated that the Government should take a decision in the
matter: Thus, it is clear that no definite view was expressed by the Board
in this regard. The fact that the Board had been consulted in the matter is
indisputable. So also the fact that no decision was taken by it. Therefore,
we asked the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to make available
the necessary files leading to the draft notification and final
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
notification and other materials that were relied upon in issuing the
notification in question. Even after careful perusal of these files, we
found that there is no further or fresh material available in these files.
In the circumstances, it is not very clear as to how the Government could
have reached the conclusion one way or the other in the. absence of any
advice by the Board and in the absence of any other material. The decision
of the Government in issuing the notification under Section 10(1) of the
Act is thus vitiated because of non-consideration of relevant materials,
The mere fact that several notifications have been issued in. relation to
contract labour or that system in sweeping and scavenging has been
abolished in some other industries may not, by itself, be sufficient to
hold that a common notification applicable to all industries and
establishment abolishing contract labour in sweeping and scavenging could
have been issued by the Government without necessary material. The
Government ought to take into consideration the relevant factors contained
in Section 10(2)(a) to (d) of the Act and thereafter decide the matter.
These aspects were, however, lost sight of by the High Court in the
decisions rendered by it earlier. In the circumstances, we have no
hesitation in quashing the notification issued by the Government of Tamil
Nadu, However, it is made clear that it is open to the Government to issue
a fresh notification after due consideration of the matter in accordance
with law.
The appeals stand allowed accordingly.