Contact Us Search In the present day world globalization is increasing at a very high pace and it is resulting in profit oriented economies which in turn leads to the promotion of contract labour.
It must meet the test of reasonableness, fairness and justness. It must be based on some rational and relevant principles. The public law interpretation is the basic tools of interpretation in that behalf relegating common law principles to purely private law field.
It is to reiterate that Heavy Engineering case is based on concession.
In the light of the above principles and discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the appropriate Government is the Central Government from the inception of the Act. The notification published under Section 10 on December 9, therefore, was in exercise of its power as appropriate Government.
So it is valid in law. The learned Solicitor General is not right in contending that the relevant factors for abolition of the contract labour system in the establishment of the appellant was not before the Central Advisory Board before its recommendation to abolish the contact labour system in the establishment of the appellant.
The learned Attorney General has placed before us the minutes of the Board which do show the unmistakable material furnished do indicated that the work in all the establishments including those of the appellants, is of perennial nature satisfying all the tests engrafted in Section 10 2 of the Act.
Accordingly, on finding the work to be of perennial nature, it had recommended and the Central Government had considered and accepted the recommendation to abolish the contract labour system in the aforesaid services. Having abolished it, the Central Government was denuded of its power under Section 10 1 to again appoint insofar as the above services of the Mohile Committee to go once over into the self-same question and the recommendation s of the latter not to abolish the contract labour system in the above services and the acceptance thereof by the Central Government are without any legal base and, therefore, non est.
The next crucial question for consideration is: Before adverting to that aspect, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. The Constitution Bench elaborately considered the provisions of the Act and had held that the Act in Section 10 empower the Government to prohibit employment of contract labour.
The Government, under that Section, has to apply its mind to various factors, before publishing the notification in the official Gazette prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.
The work in the establishment will be apparent from Section 10 2 of the Act as incidental or necessary to the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment. The Government before notifying prohibition of contract labour work which is carried on in the establishment, will consider whether the work is of a perennial nature in that establishment or work is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment.
The contractor under takes to produce a given result for the establishment through contract labour. He supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment.
The entire site is the establishment and belongs to the principal employer who has a right of supervision and control; he is the owner of the premises and the end product and from whom the contract labour receives its payment either directly or through a contractor.
It is the place where the establishment intends to carry on its business, trade, industry, manufacture, occupation after the construction is complete. Accordingly, the constutionality of the Act was upheld.
The appalling conditions of contract labour who are victims of exploitation have been engaging the attention of various committees for a long tie and in furtherance of the recommendations, the Act was enacted to benefit, as a welfare measures, viz.Again in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.
K.V. Shramik Sangh the SC had the same view point as in the case of Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union and gave the same reasoning as well. United Labour Union & Ors (4) caninariojana.com Retrieved 07, , from caninariojana.com "Air India Statutory Corporation.
V. In Food Corporation of India's case (AIR SC ) (supra), a Bench of two Judges was to consider whether regional office of the Food Corporation of India and the warehouses etc.
were an "establishment" within the meaning of Section 2 (i) (e) of the Act and whether FCI is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central. Subsequently, Air India Statutory Corporations v.
Subsequently, Air India Statutory Corporations v. United Labour Union ruled that on the abolition of the system of contract labour the workmen were entitled for absorption, and the court had powers under the Art to direct the employers to absorb such workers. United Labour Union & Ors (7) has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY ) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Air India Statutory Corporation. Again in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. K.V. Shramik Sangh the SC had the same view point as in the case of Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union and gave the same reasoning as well.
United Labour Union ruled that on the abolition of the system of contract labour the workmen were entitled for absorption, and the court had powers under the Art to direct the employers to absorb such workers.
Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bijulee Bhawan, Paltan Bazaar, Guwahati-1, Represented By Its Chief General Manager (Hr), Bijulee Bhawan, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati-1 vs.
1. The State Of Assam, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Again in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. K.V. Shramik Sangh the SC had the same view point as in the case of Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union and gave the same reasoning as well.