Contract labour prohibition notification upheld where statutory factors under Section 10 were properly considered.

A prohibition notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was challenged for alleged non-application of mind and failure to consider the Section 10(2) factors. The HC held that the appropriate Government had examined the advisory board's report, sought additional information, and considered relevant material on wage disparity, lack of leave and medical benefits, bonus, the nature and duration of the work, longstanding deployment of the same labour force, continuing volume of work, and comparable regular performance in another establishment. It further held that the work need not be a core activity for Section 10(2)(a), and that speculative business concerns did not displace the statutory assessment. The notification was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification prohibiting employment of contract labour at the petitioner's ICD was vitiated for non-application of mind and for compliance with the factors prescribed under Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, including the conditions of work, the incidental or necessary nature of the work, its perennial character, ordinary performance through regular workmen, and the sufficiency of whole-time work.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the validity of the impugned notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The statutory scheme requires the appropriate Government, before issuing a prohibition notification, to consider the conditions of work and benefits available to contract labour and have regard to the relevant factors specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 10(2). On the material placed before it, the Government had called for further information, examined the report and minutes of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, and only thereafter issued the notification. The record showed consideration of the wage disparity, absence of leave, annual increments, medical facilities and bonus, as well as the nature and duration of the work, the longstanding deployment of the same labour force since 1985, the substantial and continuing volume of work, and the fact that similar work was being done through regular workmen in a comparable establishment. The Court further held that the work need not be a core activity to fall within Section 10(2)(a), that the material supported a finding of perennial nature and sufficient volume, and that speculative factors such as revocability of the customs licence or possible business reduction did not displace the statutory assessment.

Conclusion: The notification was not shown to suffer from non-application of mind or from disregard of the statutory factors, and it was upheld.

---