CONTRACT LABOUR REGULATION & ABOLITION ACT, 1970
Zia
(Querist) 30 November 2008
This query is : Resolved
Please refer to the definition of "Appropriate Government " under CLR&A Act 1970.
Can any of the learned lawyer throw some light regrding who would be the "Appropriate Government" under CLR&A Act for Central Public Sector Undertakings, i.e Central govt. or state govt.References in this regard may be made to the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SAIL and HAL cases.
It is pertinent to mention that in the State of Chhattisgarh, CG IR Act is applicable in palce of ID Act.
Prakash Yedhula
(Expert) 06 December 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : CONTRACT
WP(C) No.3204/1995
Order reserved on : 12.7.2006.
Date of Decision: August 01, 2006
M/s National Thermal Power
Corporation, Through its Chairman
and Managing Director
Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003 ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.R. Das, Advocate
versus
1. Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi, Through Secretary, Labour,
Department of Labour, Old Secretariat,
Delhi
2.All India Mazdoor Trade Union(Registered)
Through its General Secretary, 163, Bal Mukund Khand,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19
..... Respondents
Through Mr. S.K. Pandey,
Advocate
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification No.F-
2(1)/CLA/LC/95(2)/484 of Delhi dated 31.7.1995 issued by Govt. of NCT under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolitions) Act, 1970.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking having its head office at New Delhi and was engaged in generation of electricity in the country and has got branches/regional offices throughout India. The petitioner was having its office at Scope Complex, 7 Lodhi Road and for the operation and maintenance of air conditioning system of this office, the petitioner had engaged contractor M/s Utility Engineers(P) Ltd.,
16, Shopping Complex, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The petitioner had license to engage contract labour. The respondent No.2, a trade union had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution praying that the members of respondent NO.2 be directed to be absorbed and regularized by the petitioner. A prayer was also made by the respondent No.2 to direct Delhi administration to abolish contract labour system for the maintenance of air conditioning system. Supreme Court passed an order dated 29.3.1995 directing that the appropriate government to take a decision on the demand made by the union and to consider whether a fit case for prohibition of contract labour in accordance with Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act was made out or not. In pursuance of the order of Supreme Court, a representation was
filed by respondent No.2 before the Delhi Government who referred the matter to Labour Advisory Board. The petitioner also filed its statement before Labour Advisory Board and stated that Labour Advisory Board of Delhi Government had no jurisdiction over the petitioner for issuance of the notification under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
3. The petitioner also took the stand that the work of maintenance of air conditioning plant was not perennial in nature and it was a seasonal work. However, the impugned notification was issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi prohibiting employing of contract labour for the operation and maintenance of air conditioning system of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has challenged the notification on twin grounds (i) that the Lt.Governor/ the Government of Union Territory of Delhi was not the appropriate
Government for the petitioner which was a public sector undertaking engaged in
generation of electricity and was under control of Central Government; (ii) that relevant factors specified under Section 10(2) of Contract Labour Act have not been considered before issuing the notification. No counter has been filed to the writ petition by the respondent despite the fact that respondents were served as back in 1996 and time was
sought for filing reply.
5. In 2003 Vol.I LLJ Pg. 494 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another vs. Hindustan
Aero Canteen K. Sangh and Others Supreme Court held: The question that arise for
consideration in this case is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the State Government is the 'appropriate Government' under the provisions of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970. The Constitution Bench of the
Zia
(Querist) 06 December 2008
Thank u so much for the insight shared. But what about the fact that in the state of Chhattisgarh, CG IR Act is applicable in place of ID Act.
