Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. With Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftakhar Ahmed, Ms. Vasudha v. GOVT. OF INDIA

Judgment

1. The present writ petition challenges notification dated 17 November 2006 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, whereby employment of contract labour in the petitioner’s 1 establishment was prohibited. The impugned notification issued under Section 10 (1) of the

2. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 19702 , prohibited the employment of contract labour in the works of handling import and Signature Not Verified 1 Central Warehousing Corporation, “CWC” hereinafter 2 “the Act” hereinafter Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008 export container/ cargo, their loading and unloading from road vehicles, along with their stuffing and de-stuffing in/from containers, in the CWC’s Inland Clearance Depot3 at Ghazipur, Patparganj, with immediate effect.

3. CWC’s challenge alleges non-application of mind, as required by, and in accordance with, Section 10 (2) of the Act, while issuing the impugned notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act.

4. CWC is a statutory corporation, established under Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The relevant facility to the present dispute is an ICD established in 1985 by CWC at Patparganj, for which it had been granted a license by Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, 1992.

5. related to export/import4 The ICD at Patparganj forms a dry port. Here, all formalities of containers are said to be completed before transit to their respective destinations. It is CWC’s case that EXIM related handling and transport activities are largely mechanised and include activities such as stuffing/de-stuffing of containers, which happen in factories of parties intending to export/import relevant containers, and that these parties are free to have their own labour and equipment. Signature Not Verified 3“the ICD” hereinafter 4 EXIM Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008

6. Clauses 29 and 30 of the General Terms and Conditions of Storage, CWC, are relevant in ascertaining CWC’s relationship with their contractor(s) for activities involving handling and transport of containers. It stands reproduced as under: "Handling and Transport:

29. Normally the depositors are required to make their own arrangements for handling of their stocks. The depositors will bear all the charges on handling of stocks till the same are stacked in Warehouse.

30. A depositor may entrust the work of Handling and Transport of his goods to the Central Warehousing Corporation with prior arrangement at the Warehouses where he has made the reservation of space. The Central Warehousing Corporation will provide such facilities to the depositors through H & T contractors appointed of delivery."

7. Therefore, the handling and transport5 work at the ICD has contracted out by the CWC. The contractor currently allotted H & T work at the ICD since 6 January 2021 is one M/s Rahul Roadways, Respondent 227 in the present petition. They were preceded by M/s Suman Forwarding agency, Respondent 226 in the present petition, who handled H & T operations at the ICD between 3 January 2013 and 5 January 2021.

8. In January 2000, one Inder Paswan along with 96 other contractual labourers filed WP (C) 48/2000 before this Court praying for the regularisation of their services by CWC and issuance of a notification for abolition of contract labour at ICD Patparganj. Vide Signature Not Verified 5 H & T Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008 judgment dated 17 October 2000, the petition as disposed of with directions to not substitute the workmen’s services with that of any other contract labour. The dispute, on parties consenting ad idem, was referred to the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, constituted under Section 3 of the Act by the Central Government, for making appropriate recommendations, if any, on whether contract labour was to be abolished at CWC’s ICD.

9. Around the same time, WP (C) 4407/2000 was filed by one Subhash Chaurasia and 58 other contractual labourers seeking a similar relief.

10. The CACLB constituted a committee under section 5 of the Act to examine the matter vide Resolution dated 9 July 2001. The Committee constituted submitted its report on 9 December 2002, recommending the prohibition of contractual labour at the ICD. The CWC made a representation to the Ministry of Labour against these recommendations on 9 June 2003, praying for their reconsideration.

11. The CACLB in its 53rd meeting held on 11-12 March 2003 accepted the Committee’s report, and recommended Government of India the prohibition of contract labour at CWC Patparganj.

12. Numerous petitions were then filed by workmen seeking prohibition of contract labour at the ICD by Government notification Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008 under Section 10 (1), as well as subsequent regularisation/absorption of these labourers into the CWC’s workforce.

13. Vide order dated 18 April 2006, disposing of a large batch of writ petitions being WP (C)s 4334-4421/2006, this Court noted that the delay in the Government’s decision on the recommendation of the CACLB to abolish contract labour deployment at the ICD was due to the Central Government’s request for certain information and documents not being complied with in a timely manner by the CWC. This information was requested due to the presence of certain disputed facts within the CACLB’s recommendations, regarding which the Government sought clarity before taking a decision. The CWC only submitted this information on 30 March 2006.

14. The aforementioned batch of petitions was disposed of with a direction to the UOI to consider the matter expeditiously and to take a final view on the matter within three months, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

15. Thereafter, impugned notification prohibiting deployment of contractual labour at CWC’s ICD for the handling of import/export container/cargo, their loading/unloading from road vehicles and their stuffing/de-stuffing in/from containers, was issued on 17 November 2006 by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008

16. WP (C) 2849/2007 was filed on 26 May 2008 by the CWC in challenge against the impugned notification. Vide order dated 24 April 2007, the petition was disposed of, in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in ONGC v Collector of Central Excise6 , with directions to approach the relevant high-powered committee, only upon whose granting of clearance the CWC would be at liberty to approach the Court.

17. The High-Powered Committee, while granting clearance to approach this Court qua an appropriate writ petition, observed that the CACLB is a quasi-judicial authority, and that there is no provision under law for an administrative appeal against its decisions.

18. An order of stay was passed in WP (C) 2849/2007, relying upon order dated 7 May 2007 in WP (C) 3041/2007 titled “Container Corporation of India v GNCTD” due to the Court observing that CWC was similarly placed as the petitioner in WP (C) 3041/2007.

19. The present writ petition dates back to the year 2008, its history is rich and includes multiple disputes before the Industrial Tribunal, intervention applications before this court, inter alia, the journey through which is not germane to the dispute before us.

20. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Signature Not Verified 6(2004) 6 SCC 437 Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008

21. The contentions raised by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the CWC, as well as those raised in pleadings, are listed briefly below: a. The impugned notification was passed without application of mind and in disregard of the factors contained within Section 10 (2) of the Act. b. The notification is in the teeth of paras 52 and 53 of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in SAIL v National Union Waterfront Workers7 . c. The proposal of the economic officer in the ministry has been signed without any examination or consideration, more particularly para (f) of the CACLB’s report regarding similar work being carried out in an establishment run by the CCI through regular workmen. d. The core activity of CWC is to provide storage and preservation of food grains and that operating the ICD would be an ancillary activity. e. The VRS utilised to reduce staff strength at the ICD was not considered by the CACLB. f. The work carried out is not perennial in nature as volume fluctuates with Government policy. g. The license conferred upon CWC by Customs authorities may be revoked at any time. h. The contract entered into with H & T contractors is not for the supply of labour/workman, but is on a job-work Signature Not Verified 7(2001) 7 SCC 1 Signed By:SHILPI Signing Date:25.04.2025 10:37:35 WP(C) 4114/2008 basis and involves the contractor keeping heavy machinery at hand, and that even payments are based on Rupees per Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit8 , Rupees per km, Rupees per quintal etc. i. Almost all other ICD’s/CFS operated by CWC or other public sector undertakings outsource H & T work. The H & T contracts of CCI and other PSUs are on record as Annexure P-1 Colly. j. That the High-powered committee observed that the CWC operates in the same market as private persons and all handlers are not covered by the same rule. k. The CACLB did not sufficiently deal with the dissenting note of the employer-member.

22. Reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel for CWC on the judgments of the Supreme Court in SAIL, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi9, International Airport Authority of India v International Air Cargo Workers’ Union10, and State of Haryana v Piara Singh11 .

23. The contentions raised by Mr. T.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the UOI, as well as those raised in pleadings, are summarised below: a. The work mentioned in the impugned notification has been carried out by contract labour at the ICD since 1985,