JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA V/S THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Aug. 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 14:

1. The instant writ petition has filed for the following reliefs: a. Quashing of the notification bearing S.O. No. 707 dated 17.03.1993, whereby and whereunder, in exercise of power conferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short Act, 1970), the Central Government has been pleased to prohibit employment of contract labour in raising of mineral including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone, dolomite and further prohibited employment in transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumpers, conveyers and transportation from mine site to factory and loading and unloading therefor. b. Further, prayer is made for quashing of S.O. No. 477(E) dated 04.07.1996, whereby the entry at Item No. 2 of S.O. No. 707 dated 17.03.1993 was substituted and loading and unloading only within the mine site was prohibited, instead transportation from mine site to factory and loading and unloading therefor.

2. The petitioner is a Steel Company and being aggrieved by the said notification, the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the same.

3. Challenge to the notification is on the ground that it was issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee to study the nature of job, processes and operations in lime stone and dolomite mines and to recommend, if the contract labour system should be abolished. The Committee had the representatives of employers as well as the representatives of Unions and the representatives of Government. On the basis of the recommendation made by the said Committee, the notification was issued.

4. It is contended that the Committee never visited the mines which fall within the State of Jharkhand and neither in the report of the Committee, the name of any mine of the State of Jharkhand finds place. The names of Bhawnathpur and Tulsidamar dolomite mines did not find place in the report. The Committee mainly concentrated on wages and welfare facilities of contract labours, but it did not advert to other conditions of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970. There were Three important Members in the Committee, who dissented to the abolition of engagement of contract labour in transportation from mine site where vehicles had to travel on public road.

5. The said report was considered by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board at its 25th meeting held in New Delhi on 18.11.1992. There was no effective consultation between the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board and the Central Government.

6. In absence of effective consultation, the procedure between the Central Government and the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, the procedure for notification was not complied with which was mandatory in terms of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970. Item No. 2 of notification dated 17.03.1993 was substituted. Reliance is placed on the following authorities in support of the contention that in absence of the valid consultation, notification would be non-est in the eye of law: i. (2013) 16 SCC 206 (para 29, 30, 31) ii. (2015) 11 SCC 734 (para 38, 39) iii. (2008) 7 SCC 203 (para 23) iv. (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 23)

7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the Central Government after taking into consideration, the relevant factors set out under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Act, 1970 issued the notification and, therefore, there was a due compliance with requirement of consultation of Section 10 of the said Act, 1970. The consultation here does not require concurrence, as the appropriate Government has to ensure the mandatory factors under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970. Letter dated 05.10.1990 of the Department of Mines conveyed their concurrence with the views of the Committee.

8. The main plank of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Government of India was not properly consulted before issuing the impugned notification. Quite interestingly, the concerned Ministry of the Government of India has at no stage raised the issue of non-consideration, before issuing the notification. On the contrary, the notification was issued after the said consultation, and the present petition has been filed after 7 years of the said notification. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.