Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.03.2010CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.18617 of 2001 The Management of Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited6, NungambakkamChennai 600 034.. PetitionerVs.

The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)Office of the Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Shastri BhavanChennai 600 0062.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)Office of the Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Shastri BhavanChennai 600 0063.Union of IndiaRep.by the Secretary to the Government of IndiaLabour MinistryShram Shakthi BhavanNew Delhi4.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary and CommissionerLabour and Employment DepartmentFort St.GeorgeChennai 600 009 .. Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connectedwith Order No.CL (P.E)/35/6/2001/E1/II dated 6.9.2001 and quash theorder on the file of the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner :: Mr.Sanjay Mohan for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates For Respondents :: Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, A.G.P.for R4No appearance for R1 to R3

O R D E RThe petitioner is a management of the Tamil Nadu Petro ProductsLimited. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the 1st respondent LabourEnforcement Officer, Chennai, they have filed the present WritPetition.

In the impugned notice dated 6.9.2001, the 1st respondentconducted an inspection and held that the petitioner management didnot have a Certificate of Registration from the appropriateGovernment registering their office for the purpose of engagingcontract labour in terms of Section 7(1) of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In his Inspection Report, hefound the following:i) The petitioner did not maintain a Register of Contractors, thereby violating Rule 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules.ii) The abstract and notice under the Act were not displayedpermanently as required under the Act. Contravening Rule 72, thepayment of wages to the contract labourers were also not maintained. iii) The commencement of the contract work in terms of Rule 81(3) was also not maintained. The petitioner management has filed the present Writ Petitionchallenging the said show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent, who is the authority notified by the Central Government.

The Writ Petition was admitted on 8.10.2001. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court by an order dated 8.10.2001 granted interimstay. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be made absolute on24.9.2003. Though initially this Writ Petition was directed to beposted along with W.P.No.18618 of 2001, for the reasons best known, the same was not tagged along with the other Writ Petition. It nowtranspires that the other Writ Petition was disposed as early as on8.10.2001.

The short point arises for consideration is as to whether the1st respondent is a jurisdictional officer entitled to issue the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned notice? In effect, whether the appropriate Government interms of the operations carried on by the petitioner is the CentralGovernment or the State Government. The question raised in this WritPetition is no longer res integra.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide itsjudgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National UnionWaterfront Workers reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 held as follows:125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of thequestion whether the Central Government or the StateGovernment is the appropriate Government in relation toan establishment, will depend, in view of the definitionof the expression “appropriate Government” as stood inthe CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is theindustry under consideration carried on by or under theauthority of the Central Government or does it pertain toany specified controlled industry, or the establishmentof any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine oroilfield or the establishment of banking or insurancecompany? If the answer is in the affirmative, the CentralGovernment will be the appropriate Government; otherwisein relation to any other establishment the Government ofthe State in which the establishment was situated, wouldbe the appropriate Government; (b) After the said date in view of the new definitionof that expression, the answer to the question referredto above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the CentralGovernment company/undertaking concerned or anyundertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or(ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under theauthority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railwaycompany; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, thenthe Central Government will be the appropriateGovernment; otherwise in relation to any otherestablishment, the Government of the State in which thatother establishment is situated, will be the appropriateGovernment.

In that judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the termappropriate Government found under section 2(a) of the ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has the same meaning asthat of the Industrial Disputes Act and in cases for such anindustry, if the appropriate Government under the Industrial DisputesAct is the State Government, then, the authority under the ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 will also be the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government. So long as the appropriate Government for the petitionerindustry is not the Central Government under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the question of the 1st respondentissuing notice for alleged violations of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act will not arise. In the affidavitfiled in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has also statedthat they have got their establishment registered under section 12 ofthe Act from the authorities notified by the State Government.

In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. However, there will be no orderas to costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)Office of the Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 0062.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)Office of the Regional LabourCommissioner (Central)Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 0063.The Secretary to the Government of India Union of India, Labour MinistryShram Shakthi Bhavan, New Delhi4.The Secretary and CommissionerGovernment of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai 600 009W.P.No.18617 of 200130.03.2010+1 C.C. to Ms.Velayutham Pichaiya, Advocate – SR No.21011+1 C.C. to Mr.S.Ramasubramani, Advocate – SR No.21109LA [CO]LC 07/04/2010