Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

(By Sri.Pape Gowda, CGC for Ri & 2, Sri.C Shashikantha, CGC for Ri, M/s Subbarao & Assts. for R3 to Ri 7) ***** This Writ Appeal filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition NO.34746/2000 dated 16.02.2006. V 4 This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J.. delivered the following: JUDGMENT The appellant-petitioner “Visvesvaraiah Iron Steel Plant” at Bhadravathi. The respondents 3 to 16 are the contract labour working under the petitioner and they were mainly engaged for unloading of the iron-ore from the railway wagons and trucks. The respondents 2 to 17 were engaged by a contractor and that the petitioner was not their principal employer. The 23 workmen WP. 11568- 590/1991 seeking mandamus against the Union of India to consider their representation for issuing notification u/Sec. 10 to prohibit engaging contract labour for unloading the iron-ore from the railway wagons. The Union of India referred the matter to the Central Advisory Board. Who after hearing both the parties opined that prohibiting the contract 5 labour for unloading iron-ore may not be necessary on account of paucity of work of unloading. However, observed that 15 of the workmen have been almost perennially employed, therefore, recommended that they could be absorbed into permanent service.

2. The Union of Government issued a notification under Section 10 vide Annexure-G prohibiting employment of contract labour unloading of iron-ore through contracts in the following activity of the petitioner: a) Unloading of materials received through trucks by road, their stacking at Central Stores and other Departments. b) Clearing of the store rooms in the Central Stores, and 6 c) Other miscellaneous work, such as puring of line into bins.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by the notification filed the said writ petition. In the writ petition the issue is which is the “Appropriate Government” in the present case. The petitioner based upon the notification issued by the Central Government vide Annexure-K dated

19.03.2002 argued that the State Government is the appropriate Government and that the Central Government has no authority to issue the notification.

4. Per contra, contesting workmen argued that in writ petition in 11568-590/1991 vide Annexure-A, the a mandamus was issued to consider the need and necessity of issuing notification under section 10 of the contract labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for prohibiting appointment of 7 employment of contract labour. The judgment in the writ petition is subsequent to the notification vide Annexure-A. The judgment has become final finding on the appellant. Therefore the it is impermissible to argue that the State Government is the Appropriate Government.

5. The learned single judge considering the rival contentions held that the Central Government is the Appropriate Government and dismissed the writ petition. Petitioner aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this writ appeal.

6. Sri. S.N. Murthy, Senior counsel for the appellant submitted the following grounds to set aside the order of the single judge 1) The Advisory Committee and Central Advisory Board in categorical terms have stated that the unloading work is not perennial in nature. The I., 8 average inflow through the railway wagons is about 1200 tons and 3 to 4 weeks in an year and the iron ore load brought by trucks to be unloaded amounts to 10,000 to 20,000 tons. Therefore, the quantum of unloading does not justify employment of permanent workmen. 2) The recommendation made by the Central Advisory Board to absorb 15 workmen are the one who are employed not more than 20 to 24 days in an year and the said recommendation cannot be a basis to prohibit employment of contract labour for unloading.

7. The decision of this court in Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Karnataka Operations, Doddaballapur Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003-III-LLJ-p216, is laid down that before a notification under Section 10 has to be issued it is incumbent that Advisory Board has to be consulted and draft notification has to be published for calling objections and after hearing of the interested parties 9 the notification to be issued. In the instant case, no such procedure is followed.

8. It is submitted that in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others in Para NO.83 the following observations are made: “In the light of the above discussion we are unable to perceive in Secflon 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of concerned establishment on issuance of notUication by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) prohibiting employment of contract labour in a given establishment.”

9. The said observations over rule the earlier laws that the contract labour employed have to be automatically absorbed by the principal employer. Therefore, in the instant case, even if the contract labour is prohibited, the respondents cannot claim absorption into the permanent service. 10

10. The Appropriate Government is the State Government as per Annexure-K. Therefore, Central Government had no jurisdiction to issue notification under Section 10 of the Act.

11. On hearing Senior counsel Sri. Subba Rao and S.N. Murthy, we find that the view taken by the learned single judge that the Central Government is the Appropriate Government is sound and proper. May be that a notification was issued by the Central Government vide Annexure-K, wherein establishment in question is the Steel Authority of India. None the less, the judgment in the writ petition is subsequent to the notification vide Annexure-K and binds the appellant-petitioner. The appellant-petitioner challenged mandamus issued for issuing notification under Section 10. The Industrial Dispute Act is also N amended w.eJ’. 18.08.2010 declaring that in any undertaking of the Central Government has shares 51% of shares, the Appropriate Government would be the Central Government. In the instant case, the Steel factory is owned by the Central Government therefore, Central Government would be the “Appropriate Government.”

12. In view of the above said reasons the finding of the learned single judge that Central Government the Appropriate Government, sound and proper and does not call for interference. The decision of this court in Tractor and Form Equipment Limited Vs. State of Karnataka 2003- III L.L.J. ‘76Op has no application to the facts of the case. In the said case, the basic question involved was failure to give opportunity and non-application 12 of mind before issuing notification under Section 10 of the Act.

13. In the present case, before the Central Advisory Board, has given opportunity to the parties to submit their case. The Central Advisory Board has submitted its opinion to the Central Government after considering the material and has issued the notification in question. Merely because the Central Government has not followed the advise of Central Advisory Board is not a ground by itself to hold that the notification as bad in law under Section 15(b) and explanation to subsection (2) of Section (10) categorically declares the decision of appropriate Government. On the question whether a process or other work as perennial in nature is final one. The report of the Central Advisory Board categorically discloses that contract labour employed V 13 for unloading iron-ore from the railway wagons, trucks and also they are employed for issuing the materials from stores.

14. The notification in question however, does not pertain to prohibition of contract labour of unloading of iron-ore from railway wagons but prohibits the unloading from the trucks and shifting materials from Stores. For the reasons and discussions made above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd! JUDGE Sd! JUDGE Bsv