Discriminatory exclusion of brick-handling work from labour notification held unconstitutional where the activity formed part of a continuous industrial process.
Exclusion of loading and unloading of bricks from a labour-abolition notification was held discriminatory because the same loading work in other departments had been covered without a rational basis. The Court treated purchase, transport, unloading, stacking and use of bricks as one continuous industrial process, and held that the brick-handling work was incidental and allied to the notified work. The record did not support the claim that the activity lacked perennial character. The impugned exclusion was therefore unconstitutional, and the affected workmen were entitled to the same treatment as notified workers in the Brick Department.
Issues: (i) Whether the exclusion of loading and unloading of bricks from the benefit of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether loading and unloading of bricks in the Brick Department was incidental or allied to the other notified work and was of perennial nature so as to justify inclusion within the notification.
Issue (i): Whether the exclusion of loading and unloading of bricks from the benefit of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The notification had extended relief to similar loading work in other departments, while excluding the same activity in the Brick Department without a rational basis. The work of loading and unloading of bricks formed part of a continuous industrial process connected with transport, stacking and use of bricks in the furnace. In the absence of material justifying differential treatment, the exclusion singled out one class of workmen for hostile treatment.
Conclusion: The exclusion was held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
Issue (ii): Whether loading and unloading of bricks in the Brick Department was incidental or allied to the other notified work and was of perennial nature so as to justify inclusion within the notification.
Analysis: The Court treated purchase, transportation, unloading, stacking and use of bricks as one continuing process. Loading and unloading was held to be incidental and allied to stacking and to the industry carried on by the employer. No material showed that the work lacked perennial character, and the record did not support the asserted distinction between this work and the other notified jobs.
Conclusion: The work was held to be incidental and allied, and the objection that it was not of perennial nature was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned exclusion was set aside, and the affected workmen were entitled to be treated at par with the notified workers in the Brick Department.
Ratio Decidendi: Where contract labour performs work that is part of a continuous industrial process and is materially similar to notified work, exclusion of that work from the benefit of a labour-abolition notification without rational justification is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
