2002 (6) TMI 610 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Invalidates Government Orders for Non-Compliance with Contract Labour Act; Stresses Detailed Examination Required.

Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Ors. Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

The court quashed G.O. Ms. No. 914, 915, and 11, invalidating the notifications due to non-compliance with Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 914, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (Lab.II) Department dated 24-8-1978.2. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 915, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (Lab.II) Department dated 24-8-1978.3. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 11, Women's Development, Child Welfare and Labour (Lab.II) Department dated 12-2-1990.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 914, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (Lab.II) Department dated 24-8-1978:The petitioners challenged the notification G.O. Ms. No. 914, which abolished contract labour in specific operations of M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited. The primary contention was that the operations mentioned were not perennial but intermittent, and the notification did not comply with the requirements of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Supreme Court's judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Waterfront Workers was cited, emphasizing the need for the government to consider the factors in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 before issuing such notifications. The court found that the notification lacked the necessary examination of these factors and thus was contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act.2. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 915, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (Lab.II) Department dated 24-8-1978:This notification directed the management of M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited to absorb the contract labourers into regular employment. Since G.O. Ms. No. 915 was consequential to G.O. Ms. No. 914, its validity was inherently linked to the latter. Given that G.O. Ms. No. 914 was found to be invalid due to non-compliance with Section 10 of the Act, G.O. Ms. No. 915 was also quashed.3. Validity and legality of G.O. Ms. No. 11, Women's Development, Child Welfare and Labour (Lab.II) Department dated 12-2-1990:This notification prohibited contract labour in all canteens required under the Factories Act, 1948, and directed the principal employers to absorb the canteen workers. The petitioners argued that the government failed to consider the specific conditions of individual establishments before issuing a blanket prohibition. The court noted that the notification was an omnibus one and did not reveal compliance with the factors outlined in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. The Supreme Court's ruling in Steel Authority of India Limited was referenced, which required a detailed examination of each establishment's conditions before issuing such notifications. Consequently, the court found G.O. Ms. No. 11 to be invalid.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ appeals, quashed the impugned Government Orders (G.O. Ms. No. 914, G.O. Ms. No. 915, and G.O. Ms. No. 11), and set aside the common order of the learned single Judge dated 27-9-1999. The notifications were found to be contrary to Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in the Steel Authority of India case. The court emphasized the need for the government to apply its mind and consider the specific conditions of each establishment before issuing such notifications.