S.10 (1)-A single notification prohibiting contract labour can be issued in respect or different establishments if the operation and nature of work are similar in all establishments Hence notification prohibiting/contract labour in coal mines was proper. J.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Lab IC 641 (Pat HC).

S.10 -Central Government is not required to put on record that they have examined the question of prohibition of contract labour in the establishments after taking into account each fact separately. It is for the person challenging the notification to establish that the notification in question had been issued on some extraneous considerations or without taking into account the relevant factors mentioned in S. 10(2). J.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Lab IC 641 (Pat HC).

Provincial Govt. has exclusive jurisdiction in regard to prohibition of employment of contract labour. Industrial Tribunal cannot issue directions to an establishment to abolish contract labour w. e. f. a date after coming into force of the Act. Vegoils Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1971) 2 SCC 724.

No doubt, the Industrial Tribunal referred to Section 10 of the Central Act, but the Tribunal misapplied those provisions when it directed abolition of contract labour regarding loading and unloading operations. Vegolis Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, (1971) 2 SCC 724, 730, 733,740.

On merits the direction of the Industrial Tribunal abolishing contract labour regarding loading and unloading cannot be sustained. When it is shown that in similar establishment this type of work is not ordinarily done through regular workmen, but by contract labour that is a circumstance which will operate in favour of the appellant.

It is clear that the feeding of hoppers in the solvent extraction plant is an activity closely and intimately connected with the main activity of the appellant. This item of work is incidental to the nature of the industry carried on by the appellant, which must be done almost every day and there should be no difficulty in having regular workmen in the employment of the appellant to do this type of work. Also on comparison with other factories doing the same work it follows that the feeding of hoppers is an essential part of the industry carried on by the appellant and that it could very well be done by the departmental workman as is being done by others.

If the work for which contract labour is employed is incidental to and closely connected with the main activity of the industry and is of a perennial and permanent nature, the abolition of contract labour should be justified. It is also open to the Industrial Tribunal to have regard to the practice obtaining in other industries in or about the same area.

The dispute related to the abolition of contract labour in the seeds godown and solvent extraction plants in the appellant's factory engaged in the manufacture of edible oils and its by-products. The appellant company maintained that in both the departments the work was intermittent and sporadic type and hence contract labour was both efficient and economic. The union, on behalf of the workmen, challenged this standpoint and furnished charts, etc., to prove the continuous and perennial nature of the work. It also referred to the practice in certain other companies.

Criteria and circumstances for abolition of Contract Labour.- Feeding hoppers incidental and allied to main work-Loading and unloading sporadic and intermittent work.