Oil India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - before that i would like to clear the facts for better appreciation of the controversy at hand. 6. first i would like to dispose of the question relating to the affidavit of the respondents no. 1) decided as follows :25 it is a well settled proposition of law that the function of the court is to interpret the statute to ascertain the intent of the legislature-parliament. '.9. the ratio available from the decision above clearly indicates that the embargo on the powers of the court with regard to the question at hand is final. this clearly indicates that the central government had not adverted to any of the essentials, referred to above, except the requirement of consultation with the central advisory board. that apart, the hon'ble supreme court was not satisfied that the appropriate government, i. 4320 of 1996 disposed of on 27.1.1998. the matter was placed before the central advisory board on 24th and 25th april, 1998 which in turn constituted a committee vide resolution dated 17.11.1998. the committee submitted its report on 26th april, 1999. the committee recommended abolition of the contract labour after studying the work of the contract labour system. shri sankar sana, member while generally agreeing with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the first option that is abolition of contract labour because the workmen have completed more than 240 days continuous service in the establishment and should be absorbed with retrospective effect. shri khisty, member in his dissenting note, had recommended that the contract labour may not be prohibited. referred to in the report of the committee, as they satisfy the criteria laid down in section 10(2) of the contract labourer (regulation and abolition) act, 1970.'13. the above materials clearly indicate that the central advisory board after hearing the parties decided to recommend to the government the abolition of the contract labour in respect of jobs/ works in the establishment of oil india limited (pipe line division). on the face of these documents, it would be difficult for this court to conclude that the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act of 1970 have not been taken due care of. such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible. '.15. the above observations clearly indicate that there is a departure from the earlier view. '.the above decision of the supreme court clearly indicate that exercise still remains to be done in a case where contract labour is abolished before regular absorption is ordered. the resolution of the board quoted hereinbefore clearly indicates that there was threadbare discussion and deliberation before the board resolved to recommend abolition of contract labour. the brief placed before the board clearly indicates that all factual details necessary for compliance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act of 1970 were placed before it. d. biswas, j. 1. this petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india has been initiated by the oil india limited for issue of a writ quashing the impugned notification dated 25.1.2000 published in the gazette of india extraordinary dated 25.1.2000 (annexure - d) . the impugned notification reads as follows :-notification new delhi, the 25th january, 2000s.o.70(e) - in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 10 of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970, the central government after consultation with the central advisory contract labour board, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the jobs, operations or processes specified in the schedule annexed hereto, in the establishment of the oil india limited (pipeline division), with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette. .schedule1. office clerk/typist2. driver3. mason4. security guard5. carpenter6. painter.7. electrician8. welder9. office peon10. office attendant11. medical attendant12. helpers to all technician13. sweepers/sanitary cleaner14. mali15. telephone operator16. draughtsman17. printer18. overseer helper19. chainman20. plumber(f.no.u-23013/25/98-lw) s.k. das, director general (labour welfare)/jt. secy.'2. the effect of the aforesaid notification is the abolition of the intermediary between the contract labourers and the principal employer, i.e., the oil india limited (pipe line division) in the instant case. oil india limited have challenged the notification on various grounds to be addressed later on. before that i would like to clear the facts for better appreciation of the controversy at hand.3. in 1991, the contract labourers engaged by the contractors raised a dispute through their union for regularization of the services and for similar service benefits. after discussion and investigation, 313 labourers were given the similar pay and wages as per conciliatory agreement signed on 23.12,1992 by the management and the union. the union again filed civil rule no. 4320/1996 before this court praying for regularisation of the services of the said 313 contract labourers and also for similar benefits to another set of 101 labourers. the said civil rule was disposed of with the observation that the workers' union may approach the appropriate government for abolition of contract labour. thereafter, the workers' union filed a representation before the government of india which was discussed at hyderabad in the month of august, 1996. the designated principal employer of the pipe line division attended the meeting on behalf of the oil india limited and placed all materials before the board. the board, after consideration of the materials placed, decided to constitute a committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour in the establishment of oil india limited (pipe line division). thereafter, a committee was constituted by notification dated 17.11.98 with shri shankar sana, secretary, u.t.u.c., shri c.h. khistry (pers), central coal india limited and the respondent no. 2, the regional labour commissioner, guwahati to go into the question. the management of oil india limited submitted all details to the respondent no. 2 and in the meeting of the committee held on 11.1.1999, it was decided to visit sonapur pump station, west bengal on 2.2.1999 for investigation. the proposed visit to sonapur was not materialized and the respondentno. 2 by letter dated 15.2.1999 (annexure-b) informed the management that the members of the committee will visit the pipe line headquarter on 17.2.1999 for a discussion with the workers and the union representative. on that day the management of the oil india limited was informed over phone that instead of visiting the work site, the members will hold meeting at the lgnb international airport at guwahati. accordingly a meeting was held at lgnb international airport at guwahati for about half an hour only. on 7.7.1999 the central advisory board met at new delhi to consider the matter. in that meeting the prayer of the management for adjournment was turned down. however, the representative of the management came to know that the committee made two sets of recommendations, one favouring abolition and the other either abolition or payment of similar pay benefits. the impugned notification (annexure-d) issued by the central government on the recommendation of the board ex-facie suggest non-application of mind to the factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 10 of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970. the contract labourers represented by the union are mainly engaged in the residential colonies and a local inspection by the committee was necessary to determine whether the engagement is connected with any process or operation of the pipe line division; according to the petitioner, none of these jobs is perennial in nature. on this background, the notification has been assailed as violative of the provisions of section 10 of the act of 1970.4. the respondents no. 1 and 2 in their affidavit controverted the contentions of the writ petitioner-company that the appropriate government issued the notification in violation of the provisions of section 10{2) of the act of 1970. factual details have been incorporated, in their affidavit in order to justify the action of the appropriate government. the workers union, the respondent no. 3, in their affidavit also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.5. shri j.p. bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-company argued that the way the committee formed their opinion about the abolition in a meeting held at lgnb airport at guwahati without visiting the site and the refusal of time sought by the representative of the oil india by the central advisory board on 7.7.1999 at new delhi are indicative of the perfunctory nature of the decision making process. the condition precedent for a decision under section 10 by the appropriate government have not been adhered to. according to shri bhattacharjee, meeting was held at a short notice and no opportunity was given to the management of the oil india to represent their case. shri bhattacharjee also submitted that the affidavit filed by the respondentno. 2 on behalf of the respondent no. 1, union of india, cannot be taken into consideration since the respondent no. 2 is not the authorized person to swear affidavit on behalf of the union. shri k.k. mahanta, learned c.g.s.c. challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that a government company is not competent to initiate a writ against the government to nullify government decision taken in compliance with the statutory provisions embodied in section 10 of the act of 1970. dr. y.k. phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 reiterating the same argument submitted that the oil india have not pleaded their inability to shoulder their responsibility in implementing the government's decision in favour of the contract labour.6. first i would like to dispose of the question relating to the affidavit of the respondents no. 1 and 2. confusion sought to be created stands dispelled in view of the revised version of sro 351 dated 14th february, 1990 which inter alia empowers the respondent no. 2 to swear/verify on behalf of respondent no. 1. no further deliberation is necessary on this point.7. a careful consideration of the pleadings and supporting documents on record and the file produced by the respondents-authority leave no room for doubt that the decision was taken without visiting the work site. but the law embodied in section 10(2) of the act of 1970 does not contemplate visit to the work site. the factors enumerated therein can be taken care of on the basis of materials placed by the management. in order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to quote hereinbelow the provisions of section 10:- '10. prohibition of employment of contract labour :- (1) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the appropriate government may, after consultation with the central board or, as the case may be, a state board, prohibit, by notification in the official gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.(2) before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment, and other relevant factors, such as - (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 ;(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto ;(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.explanation : if a question arises whether any process or operation or other works is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate government thereon shall be final.'.8. sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act of 1970 provides for consideration of the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in an establishment and other relevant factors incorporated therein. explanation to sub-section (2) provides that the decision of the appropriate government with regard to the question whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature shall be final. this provision embodied in the explanation operate as a embargo on the powers of a court to question the legality, propriety and validity of a decision with regard to the perennial nature of the services rendered by the contract labour. in a petition under article 226, interference with such a decision on re-appreciation of facts relating to the conditions of work and benefits provided to the contract labour is on the face of the statutory provisions is not permissible, the decision of the appropriate government being final. where the language of a particular statute is clear and explicit, the court has to give effect to it as it conveys true intent of the legislature. the supreme court in para-25 of the judgment in steel authority of india ltd. and ors. v. national union water front workers and ors. (2000) 7 scc pg. 1) decided as follows :-- '25 it is a well settled proposition of law that the function of the court is to interpret the statute to ascertain the intent of the legislature-parliament. where the language of the statute is clear and explicit the court must give effect to it because in that case words of the statute unequivocally speaks the intention of the legislature. this rule of literal interpretation has to be adhered to and a provision, in the statute has to be understood in its ordinary natural sense unless the court finds that the provision sought to be interpreted is vague or obscurely worded in which event the other principles of interpretation may be called in aid. a plain reading of the said phrase, under interpretation, shows that it is lucid andclear. there is no obscurity, no ambiguity and no abstruseness. therefore the words used therein must be construed in their natural ordinary meaning as commonly understood.'.9. the ratio available from the decision above clearly indicates that the embargo on the powers of the court with regard to the question at hand is final. the language employed in the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 10 suffer from no ambiguity or obscurity. the decision of the government that the jobs are perennial in nature cannot be disturbed by this court. this court, therefore, has to exercise due restrain in re-opening the question unless the records indicate that no exercise was undertaken by the appropriate government to ascertain the nature or conditions of the work and benefits provided.10. in the judgment of steel authority of india (supra) almost all the previous decisions of the apex court referred to by the learned counsel before this court have been taken into consideration. it would, therefore, suffice to dispose of the matter at hand on the basis of law as interpreted by the supreme court in the said judgment. for this purpose we may refer to paragraphs 51 and 52 of the said judgment:'51. now, reading the definition of 'establishment' in section 10, the position that emerges is that before issuing notification under sub-section (1) an appropriate government is required to (i) consult the central state board ; (ii) consider the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and (iii) take note of the factors such as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of section 10, referred to above, with reference to any office or department of the government or local authority or any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. these being the requirement of section 10 of the act, we shall examine whether the impugned notification fulfils these essentials.52. the impugned notification issued by the central government on december 9, 1976, reads as under :'s.o. no. 779(e) 8/9.12.76 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 10 of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the central government after consultation with the central advisory contract labour board hereby prohibits employment, of contract labour on and from the 1st march, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments in respect of which the appropriate government under the said act is the central government.provided that this notification shall not only apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multi-storeyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialized experience.a glance through the said notification, makes it manifest that with effect from march 1, 1977 it prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment in respect of which the appropriate government under the said act is the central government. this clearly indicates that the central government had not adverted to any of the essentials, referred to above, except the requirement of consultation with the central advisory board. consideration of the factors mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of which notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 is proposed to be issued. the impugned notification apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of sub-section (2) of section 10. this is ex facie contrary to the postulates of section 10 of the act. besides it also exhibits non-application of mind by the central government. we are, therefore, unable to sustain the said impugned notification dated december dated 9, 1976 issued by the central government.'.11. but the above view of the supreme court cannot be straight way applied in the instant case because of apparent differences in the notification. the notification impugned in the steel authority of india (supra) was in respect of unspecified establishment, which, appear to be omnibus in its manifestation. that apart, the hon'ble supreme court was not satisfied that the appropriate government, i.e., the central government in that case considered the factors mentioned in sub-section (2) in respect of the establishments, severally or jointly. but the notification under challenge in this writ petition has been issued in respect of establishment of the oil india limited (pipe line division) with effect from 25th january, 2000. the notification details the jobs in respect of which contract labour is abolished. therefore, ex-facie it is not possible to repudiate this notification as omnibus so as to conclude in the way the hon'ble supreme court has done in the steel authority of india (supra). moreso, the petitioner-company has challenged the notification on the ground of inadequate and insufficient investigation with regard to factors mentioned in sub-section (2). from the writ petition itself it transpires that despite short notice a meeting was held at lgnb international airport at guwahati. the central government was seized with the matter since long when the union filed representation for abolition of contractlabour after disposal of the civil rule no. 4320 of 1996 on 27.1.1998. therefore, the plea that the management was not given opportunity to represent its case, the central advisory board did not apply mind and that the committee constituted to look into the matter did not visit the work-site are not adequate enough for supersession of the final decision taken by the appropriate government.12. i have examined the relevant office file produced. it appears that the matter was initiated primarily with reference to the decision of this court in civil rule no. 4320 of 1996 disposed of on 27.1.1998. the matter was placed before the central advisory board on 24th and 25th april, 1998 which in turn constituted a committee vide resolution dated 17.11.1998. the committee submitted its report on 26th april, 1999. the committee recommended abolition of the contract labour after studying the work of the contract labour system. of course, an alternative suggestion was brought forward by one of the members of the committee to the effect that the employment of the contract labour may be allowed to continue if 285 contractual labourer covered by the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 are paid at par with the corresponding regular employee of the oil india limited including all the benefits and service conditions applicable to such regular employees and the remaining contract labours are paid wages etc. as are being paid to these 285 contract labourers at present. the report of the committee was placed before the central advisory board (caclb) in its 41st meeting held on 7th and 8th of july, 1999. the board considered the report of the committee. the alternative suggestion given by one of the members of the committee was also particularly addressed by the board and, thereafter, the board decided to recommend to the government the abolition of contract labour in the pipe line division of oil india limited, guwahati. the brief submitted to the central advisory board indicates that the report of the committee, the views of the workers' union and the particulars furnished by the management of the oil india limited including that of the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 were placed before the central advisory board held on 7th and 8th of july, 1999. the resolution reads as follows :-'item no. 8 order dated 27.1.1998 of hon'ble high court of guwahati in civil rule no. 4320 filed by the oil india pipeline mazdoor (casual) union v. union of india and others for issuance of necessary notification, under section 10 of the contract labourer (regulation & abolition) act, 1970.the board considered the report of the committee and observed that the member-convenor has suggested two options in his recommendations namely prohibition of employment ofcontract labour in all the jobs/works in the establishment of oil india ltd. (pipeline division) narangi, guwahati or alternatively, to allow engagement of contract labour if the 285 contract labourers covered by the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 are paid at par with the corresponding regular employees of oil india ltd. including all the benefits and service conditions applicable to such regular employees and remaining contract labourers are paid wages as are being paid to these 285 at present. shri sankar sana, member while generally agreeing with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the first option that is abolition of contract labour because the workmen have completed more than 240 days continuous service in the establishment and should be absorbed with retrospective effect. shri khisty, member in his dissenting note, had recommended that the contract labour may not be prohibited. however, same wages should be paid to these categories of contract workers employed by m/s oil india limited (pipeline division) as are being paid to the contract workers as per the settlement dated 23.12.92 between the management and the union.after hearing the parties and detailed deliberations, the board decided by a majority of one to recommend to the government abolition of contract labour in all the jobs/works in the establishment of oil india ltd. (pipeline division), guwahati; referred to in the report of the committee, as they satisfy the criteria laid down in section 10(2) of the contract labourer (regulation and abolition) act, 1970.'.13. the above materials clearly indicate that the central advisory board after hearing the parties decided to recommend to the government the abolition of the contract labour in respect of jobs/ works in the establishment of oil india limited (pipe line division). on the face of these documents, it would be difficult for this court to conclude that the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act of 1970 have not been taken due care of.14. the true import of a notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 has been dealt with by the supreme court in steel authority of india (supra). the supreme court held as follows : '88. in the light of the above discussion we are unable to perceive in section 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the concerned establishment on issuance of notification by the appropriate government under section 10(1) prohibitingemployment of contract labour in a given establishment.104. the principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. we have already noticed about the intendment of the clra act that it regulates the conditions of service of the contract labour and authorizes in section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act among other relevant factors. but the presence of some or all those factors, in our view, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under sub-section (1) of section 10. admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under section 10(1) by the appropriate government is not alluded to either in section 10 or if any other place in the act and the consequence of violation of sections 7 and 12 of the clra act is explicitly provided in sections 23 and 25 of the clra act, it is not for the high courts or this court to read in some unspecified remedy in section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible. we have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that the parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition notification under section 10(1) of clra act.'.15. the above observations clearly indicate that there is a departure from the earlier view. therefore, abolition of contract labour by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 does not mean automatic absorption. the consequences available in paragraph 124(6) reads as follows : '124(6). if the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under section 10(1) of the clra act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation orother work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.'.the above decision of the supreme court clearly indicate that exercise still remains to be done in a case where contract labour is abolished before regular absorption is ordered.16. it would appear from the above discussion that the appropriate government after consultation with the central advisory board prohibited by notification employment of contract labour in the oil india limited (pipe line division) with effect from 25th january, 2000. before that a committee was constituted by the central advisory board under provisions of rule 16 of the rules of 1971 to go into the question. the committee recommendations with alternative suggestions were placed before the board. the resolution of the board quoted hereinbefore clearly indicates that there was threadbare discussion and deliberation before the board resolved to recommend abolition of contract labour. no objection appears to have been made by the representative of the oil india limited during the course of deliberation. the board also took due consideration of the representation of the workers' union and the views of the management. the brief placed before the board clearly indicates that all factual details necessary for compliance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the act of 1970 were placed before it. this court is unable to discern any aberration in the decision making process. hence, the irresistible conclusion is that this court is not to interfere with the impugned notification assailed by the company.17. the question relating to maintainability of the writ petition by a government company against the decision of the appropriate government is not being addressed as it appears to be redundant for the purpose of this writ petition in view of the discussion made hereinbefore. the fact remains that the company has challenged a notification issued under a statute and not the policy decision of the central government. however, this question is reserved for answer in an appropriate case in future.18. in the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no costs..

Judgment:

D. Biswas, J.

1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been initiated by the Oil India Limited for issue of a writ quashing the impugned notification dated 25.1.2000 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 25.1.2000 (Annexure - D) .

The impugned notification reads as follows :-

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2000

S.O.70(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the jobs, operations or processes specified in the Schedule annexed hereto, in the establishment of the Oil India Limited (Pipeline Division), with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette. .

SCHEDULE

1. Office clerk/typist

2. Driver

3. Mason

4. Security Guard

5. Carpenter

6. Painter.

7. Electrician

8. Welder

9. Office peon

10. Office Attendant

11. Medical Attendant

12. Helpers to all Technician

13. Sweepers/Sanitary Cleaner

14. Mali

15. Telephone Operator

16. Draughtsman

17. Printer

18. Overseer Helper

19. Chainman

20. Plumber

(F.No.U-23013/25/98-LW)

S.K. DAS, Director General (Labour Welfare)/Jt. Secy.'

2. The effect of the aforesaid notification is the abolition of the intermediary between the contract labourers and the principal employer, i.e., the Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division) in the instant case. Oil India Limited have challenged the notification on various grounds to be addressed later on. Before that I would like to clear the facts for better appreciation of the controversy at hand.

3. In 1991, the contract labourers engaged by the Contractors raised a dispute through their Union for regularization of the services and for similar service benefits. After discussion and investigation, 313 labourers were given the similar pay and wages as per conciliatory agreement signed on 23.12,1992 by the Management and the Union. The Union again filed Civil Rule No. 4320/1996 before this Court praying for regularisation of the services of the said 313 contract labourers and also for similar benefits to another set of 101 labourers. The said civil rule was disposed of with the observation that the Workers' Union may approach the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour. Thereafter, the Workers' Union filed a representation before the Government of India which was discussed at Hyderabad in the month of August, 1996. The designated principal employer of the Pipe Line Division attended the meeting on behalf of the Oil India Limited and placed all materials before the Board. The Board, after consideration of the materials placed, decided to constitute a Committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour in the establishment of Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division). Thereafter, a Committee was constituted by Notification dated 17.11.98 with Shri Shankar Sana, Secretary, U.T.U.C., Shri C.H. Khistry (Pers), Central Coal India Limited and the Respondent No. 2, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati to go into the question. The Management of Oil India Limited submitted all details to the respondent No. 2 and in the meeting of the Committee held on 11.1.1999, it was decided to visit Sonapur Pump Station, West Bengal on 2.2.1999 for investigation. The proposed visit to Sonapur was not materialized and the Respondent

No. 2 by letter dated 15.2.1999 (Annexure-B) informed the Management that the Members of the Committee will visit the Pipe Line Headquarter on 17.2.1999 for a discussion with the workers and the Union representative. On that day the Management of the Oil India Limited was informed over phone that instead of visiting the work site, the members will hold meeting at the LGNB International Airport at Guwahati. Accordingly a meeting was held at LGNB International Airport at Guwahati for about half an hour only. On 7.7.1999 the Central Advisory Board met at New Delhi to consider the matter. In that meeting the prayer of the Management for adjournment was turned down. However, the representative of the Management came to know that the Committee made two sets of recommendations, one favouring abolition and the other either abolition or payment of similar pay benefits. The impugned notification (Annexure-D) issued by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Board ex-facie suggest non-application of mind to the factors enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The contract labourers represented by the Union are mainly engaged in the residential colonies and a local inspection by the Committee was necessary to determine whether the engagement is connected with any process or operation of the Pipe Line Division; According to the petitioner, none of these jobs is perennial in nature. On this background, the notification has been assailed as violative of the provisions of section 10 of the Act of 1970.

4. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their affidavit controverted the contentions of the writ petitioner-company that the appropriate Government issued the notification in violation of the provisions of Section 10{2) of the Act of 1970. Factual details have been incorporated, in their affidavit in order to justify the action of the appropriate Government. The Workers Union, the Respondent No. 3, in their affidavit also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.

5. Shri J.P. Bhattacharjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company argued that the way the Committee formed their opinion about the abolition in a meeting held at LGNB Airport at Guwahati without visiting the site and the refusal of time sought by the representative of the Oil India by the Central Advisory Board on 7.7.1999 at New Delhi are indicative of the perfunctory nature of the decision making process. The condition precedent for a decision under Section 10 by the appropriate Government have not been adhered to. According to Shri Bhattacharjee, meeting was held at a short notice and no opportunity was given to the Management of the Oil India to represent their case. Shri Bhattacharjee also submitted that the affidavit filed by the Respondent

No. 2 on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, Union of India, cannot be taken into consideration since the Respondent No. 2 is not the authorized person to swear affidavit on behalf of the Union. Shri K.K. Mahanta, Learned C.G.S.C. challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that a Government Company is not competent to initiate a writ against the Government to nullify Government decision taken in compliance with the statutory provisions embodied in Section 10 of the Act of 1970. Dr. Y.K. Phukan, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 reiterating the same argument submitted that the Oil India have not pleaded their inability to shoulder their responsibility in implementing the government's decision in favour of the contract labour.

6. First I would like to dispose of the question relating to the affidavit of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Confusion sought to be created stands dispelled in view of the revised version of SRO 351 dated 14th February, 1990 which inter alia empowers the Respondent No. 2 to swear/verify on behalf of Respondent No. 1. No further deliberation is necessary on this point.

7. A careful consideration of the pleadings and supporting documents on record and the file produced by the respondents-authority leave no room for doubt that the decision was taken without visiting the work site. But the law embodied in Section 10(2) of the Act of 1970 does not contemplate visit to the work site. The factors enumerated therein can be taken care of on the basis of materials placed by the Management. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to quote hereinbelow the provisions of Section 10:-

'10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under Sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment, and other relevant factors, such as -

(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 ;

(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto ;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation : If a question arises whether any process or operation or other works is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.'.

8. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1970 provides for consideration of the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in an establishment and other relevant factors incorporated therein. Explanation to Sub-section (2) provides that the decision of the appropriate government with regard to the question whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature shall be final. This provision embodied in the Explanation operate as a embargo on the powers of a Court to question the legality, propriety and validity of a decision with regard to the perennial nature of the services rendered by the contract labour. In a petition under Article 226, interference with such a decision on re-appreciation of facts relating to the conditions of work and benefits provided to the contract labour is on the face of the statutory provisions is not permissible, the decision of the appropriate Government being final. Where the language of a particular statute is clear and explicit, the Court has to give effect to it as it conveys true intent of the legislature. The Supreme Court in para-25 of the Judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC Pg. 1) decided as follows :--

'25 It is a well settled proposition of law that the function of the Court is to interpret the Statute to ascertain the intent of the Legislature-Parliament. Where the language of the Statute is clear and explicit the Court must give effect to it because in that case words of the Statute unequivocally speaks the intention of the Legislature. This rule of literal interpretation has to be adhered to and a provision, in the Statute has to be understood in its ordinary natural sense unless the Court finds that the provision sought to be interpreted is vague or obscurely worded in which event the other principles of interpretation may be called in aid. A plain reading of the said phrase, under interpretation, shows that it is lucid and

clear. There is no obscurity, no ambiguity and no abstruseness. Therefore the words used therein must be construed in their natural ordinary meaning as commonly understood.'.

9. The ratio available from the decision above clearly indicates that the embargo on the powers of the Court with regard to the question at hand is final. The language employed in the Explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 10 suffer from no ambiguity or obscurity. The decision of the Government that the jobs are perennial in nature cannot be disturbed by this Court. This Court, therefore, has to exercise due restrain in re-opening the question unless the records indicate that no exercise was undertaken by the appropriate Government to ascertain the nature or conditions of the work and benefits provided.

10. In the Judgment of Steel Authority of India (supra) almost all the previous decisions of the Apex Court referred to by the Learned Counsel before this Court have been taken into consideration. It would, therefore, suffice to dispose of the matter at hand on the basis of law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. For this purpose we may refer to paragraphs 51 and 52 of the said judgment:

'51. Now, reading the definition of 'establishment' in Section 10, the position that emerges is that before issuing notification under Sub-section (1) an appropriate Government is required to (i) consult the Central State Board ; (ii) consider the conditions of work and benefits provided for the Contract labour and (iii) take note of the factors such as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10, referred to above, with reference to any office or department of the Government or local authority or any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. These being the requirement of Section 10 of the Act, we shall examine whether the impugned notification fulfils these essentials.

52. The impugned notification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976, reads as under :

'S.O. No. 779(E) 8/9.12.76 in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board hereby prohibits employment, of contract labour on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government.

Provided that this notification shall not only apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multi-storeyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialized experience.

A glance through the said notification, makes it manifest that with effect from March 1, 1977 it prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government. This clearly indicates that the Central Government had not adverted to any of the essentials, referred to above, except the requirement of consultation with the Central Advisory Board. Consideration of the factors mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of which notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 is proposed to be issued. The impugned notification apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 10. This is ex facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act. Besides it also exhibits non-application of mind by the Central Government. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the said impugned notification dated December dated 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government.'.

11. But the above view of the Supreme Court cannot be straight way applied in the instant case because of apparent differences in the notification. The notification impugned in the Steel Authority of India (supra) was in respect of unspecified establishment, which, appear to be omnibus in its manifestation. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied that the appropriate Government, i.e., the Central Government in that case considered the factors mentioned in Sub-section (2) in respect of the establishments, severally or jointly. But the notification under challenge in this writ petition has been issued in respect of establishment of the Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division) with effect from 25th January, 2000. The notification details the jobs in respect of which contract labour is abolished. Therefore, ex-facie it is not possible to repudiate this notification as omnibus so as to conclude in the way the Hon'ble Supreme Court has done in the Steel Authority of India (supra). Moreso, the petitioner-company has challenged the notification on the ground of inadequate and insufficient investigation with regard to factors mentioned in Sub-section (2). From the writ petition itself it transpires that despite short notice a meeting was held at LGNB International Airport at Guwahati. The Central Government was seized with the matter since long when the Union filed representation for abolition of contract

labour after disposal of the Civil Rule No. 4320 of 1996 on 27.1.1998. Therefore, the plea that the Management was not given opportunity to represent its case, the Central Advisory Board did not apply mind and that the Committee constituted to look into the matter did not visit the work-site are not adequate enough for supersession of the final decision taken by the appropriate Government.

12. I have examined the relevant office file produced. It appears that the matter was initiated primarily with reference to the decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 4320 of 1996 disposed of on 27.1.1998. The matter was placed before the Central Advisory Board on 24th and 25th April, 1998 which in turn constituted a Committee vide Resolution dated 17.11.1998. The Committee submitted its report on 26th April, 1999. The Committee recommended abolition of the contract labour after studying the work of the contract labour system. Of course, an alternative suggestion was brought forward by one of the members of the Committee to the effect that the employment of the contract labour may be allowed to continue if 285 contractual labourer covered by the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 are paid at par with the corresponding regular employee of the Oil India Limited including all the benefits and service conditions applicable to such regular employees and the remaining contract labours are paid wages etc. as are being paid to these 285 contract labourers at present. The report of the Committee was placed before the Central Advisory Board (CACLB) in its 41st meeting held on 7th and 8th of July, 1999. The Board considered the report of the Committee. The alternative suggestion given by one of the Members of the Committee was also particularly addressed by the Board and, thereafter, the Board decided to recommend to the Government the abolition of contract labour in the Pipe Line Division of Oil India Limited, Guwahati. The brief submitted to the Central Advisory Board indicates that the report of the Committee, the views of the Workers' Union and the particulars furnished by the Management of the Oil India Limited including that of the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 were placed before the Central Advisory Board held on 7th and 8th of July, 1999. The resolution reads as follows :-

'Item No. 8 Order dated 27.1.1998 of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in Civil Rule No. 4320 filed by the Oil India Pipeline mazdoor (Casual) Union v. Union of India and Others for issuance of necessary notification, under Section 10 of the Contract Labourer (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

The Board considered the report of the Committee and observed that the member-convenor has suggested two options in his recommendations namely prohibition of employment of

contract labour in all the jobs/works in the establishment of Oil India Ltd. (Pipeline Division) Narangi, Guwahati or alternatively, to allow engagement of contract labour if the 285 contract labourers covered by the tripartite settlement dated 23.12.1992 are paid at par with the corresponding regular employees of Oil India Ltd. including all the benefits and service conditions applicable to such regular employees and remaining contract labourers are paid wages as are being paid to these 285 at present. Shri Sankar Sana, member while generally agreeing with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the member-convenor, had recommended that he was in agreement with the first option that is abolition of contract labour because the workmen have completed more than 240 days continuous service in the establishment and should be absorbed with retrospective effect. Shri Khisty, member in his dissenting note, had recommended that the contract labour may not be prohibited. However, same wages should be paid to these categories of contract workers employed by M/s Oil India Limited (Pipeline Division) as are being paid to the contract workers as per the settlement dated 23.12.92 between the management and the union.

After hearing the parties and detailed deliberations, the Board decided by a majority of one to recommend to the Government abolition of contract labour in all the jobs/works in the establishment of Oil India Ltd. (Pipeline Division), Guwahati; referred to in the report of the Committee, as they satisfy the criteria laid down in Section 10(2) of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.'.

13. The above materials clearly indicate that the Central Advisory Board after hearing the parties decided to recommend to the Government the abolition of the contract labour in respect of jobs/ works in the establishment of Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division). On the face of these documents, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that the conditions laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1970 have not been taken due care of.

14. The true import of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India (supra). The Supreme Court held as follows :

'88. In the light of the above discussion we are unable to perceive in Section 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the concerned establishment on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) prohibiting

employment of contract labour in a given establishment.

104. The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the Legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. We have already noticed about the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service of the contract labour and authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But the presence of some or all those factors, in our view, provide no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10. Admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government is not alluded to either in Section 10 or if any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and as such clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that the Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.'.

15. The above observations clearly indicate that there is a departure from the earlier view. Therefore, abolition of contract labour by a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 does not mean automatic absorption. The consequences available in paragraph 124(6) reads as follows :

'124(6). If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or

other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.'.

The above decision of the Supreme Court clearly indicate that exercise still remains to be done in a case where contract labour is abolished before regular absorption is ordered.

16. It would appear from the above discussion that the appropriate Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Board prohibited by notification employment of contract labour in the Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division) with effect from 25th January, 2000. Before that a Committee was constituted by the Central Advisory Board under provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1971 to go into the question. The Committee recommendations with alternative suggestions were placed before the Board. The Resolution of the Board quoted hereinbefore clearly indicates that there was threadbare discussion and deliberation before the Board resolved to recommend abolition of contract labour. No objection appears to have been made by the representative of the Oil India Limited during the course of deliberation. The Board also took due consideration of the representation of the Workers' Union and the views of the Management. The brief placed before the Board clearly indicates that all factual details necessary for compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1970 were placed before it. This Court is unable to discern any aberration in the decision making process. Hence, the irresistible conclusion is that this Court is not to interfere with the impugned notification assailed by the Company.

17. The question relating to maintainability of the writ petition by a Government Company against the decision of the appropriate Government is not being addressed as it appears to be redundant for the purpose of this writ petition in view of the discussion made hereinbefore. The fact remains that the Company has challenged a notification issued under a statute and not the policy decision of the Central Government. However, this question is reserved for answer in an appropriate case in future.

18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no costs.

.