Facts of the case:
The
appellants, a central government company is engaged in the sale and manufacture
of various types of iron and steel materials. Contractors were entrusted with
the work of handling the goods in their stockyards. On July 15, 1989, the
Government of West Bengal issued a notification prohibiting the employment of
contract labour in four specific stockyards in Calcutta under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act. This notification was kept in abeyance initially for six months
and thereafter, extended that period from time to time but stopped extending
after August 31, 1994. The first respondent, a labour union filed a writ
petition in the High Court of India, seeking to absorb the working of contract
labour in their regular establishment and asking for the prohibition
notification in abeyance to be abrogated. The High court accepted the writ and
held for the labour union. This judgement was challenged by the appellants based
on a recent judgement of the Supreme court (passed while the case was pending)
that held that in cases of Central government companies, the appropriate
government is the central government. This appeal was dismissed by the High
Court and the case was finally appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key
issues:
The
key issues of this case are:
· Whether
the prohibition notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act by the
government is valid and applies to all Central government companies
· The
correct interpretation of the expression “appropriate government” in Section 2
of CLRA Act
· If
automatic absorption of contract labour follows on the issuance of a valid
notification prohibiting the contract labour.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the contract workers would have no right to
automatic absorption after abolition. They would only have the right to
preference in employment to fill in the vacancies of permanent employees. It
further clarified who an appropriate government is in Section 10. Finally, it
clarified the scope of intervention of government or a tribunal in the
relationship between an employer and employee.
The court thus accepted the appeal.
Final Ratio:
The honorable court clarified the definition of ‘appropriate government’
in clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to be lucid and
clear. It said that the meaning was to be interpreted as it is commonly
understood. It also delineated the words ‘authority’ and ‘state’ as given in
article 12 since being an instrumentality of the central government does not
mean that it is also under the authority of the central government. Therefore,
it would be incorrect to say that for any establishment of central government,
the appropriate government would be the central government. It also held that
according to Sub section (1) of section 10 empowers the appropriate government
to prohibit a notification in the official Gazette after consultation. There
are also various necessities that need to be kept in mind before issuing the
notification. The court observed that the notification of central government in
question did not avert to any of the essentials except the requirement of
consultation. Furthermore, the court also deliberated on the automatic
absorption of contract labor working in an establishment after issuance of a
prohibition notification. It held that there was no ground for the absorption
of contract labour in issuing a notification and that it is not for the High
court or the Supreme court to read in an unspecified remedy in Section 10. Various
clarifications were also given in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act by the
court.
Personal Observations:
This case marks an important distinction to the jurisprudence of labour
laws, making it extremely important. It discussed various important segments of
the Industrial Dispute Act and cleared ambiguities with respect to various
terms in Labour laws. Most importantly, it discussed the question of automatic
absorption of labour after suspension. Hence, it becomes a very important case
while discussing labour laws in India.
0 Comments