Page 91 - DMGT516_LABOUR_LEGISLATIONS
P. 91
Labour Legislations
Notes intermediary. The very condition engrafted in Section 10(2)(d) contended that contractor might
have employed a number of workmen who may be in excess of the requirement and, therefore,
the principal employer on abolition of the contract labour may be burdened with excess workmen.
It is difficult to show that while abolishing contract labour from the given establishment, one of
the relevant considerations for the appropriate Government is to ascertain whether it is suffi cient
considerable number of full time workmen. Even otherwise, there is an inbuilt safety valve in
Section 21 of the Act, which enjoins the principal employer to make payment of wages to the
given number of contract workmen whom he has permitted to be brought for the work of the
establishment if the contractor fails to make payment to them. It is, therefore, obvious that
the principal employer as a worldly businessman in his practical commercial wisdom would
not allow contractor to bring larger number of contract labour, which may be in excess of the
requirement of the principal employer. On the contrary, the principal employer would see to it
that the contractor brings only those number of workmen who are required to discharge their
duties to carry out the work of the principal employer on his establishment through, of course,
the agency of the contractor. In fact, the scheme of the Act and regulations framed thereunder
clearly indicate that even the number of the workmen required for the given contract work is to
be specified in the licence given to the contractor.
Note In SAIL case, the Supreme Court (August 2001) (fi ve-judges bench) relaxed contract
labour laws for PSUs by quashing a 1976 Notification issued by Centre prohibiting use of
contract labour in certain types of jobs (Cleaning, Sweeping and Washing) and maintained
that such labour need not be automatically absorbed by PSUs. Such an interpretation
(automatic absorption) of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle
of ironing out the creases and scope of improve-live legislation and as such clearly
inadmissible. It is difficult to accept that parliament intended automatic absorption of
Contract Labour on issue of abolition notification U/S 10 (1) of C.L. (R&A) Act. Now
Private Sector is also interpreting that automatic absorption of contract labour is not there
and they are persuading the Central Government to make a legislation on that.
In Steel Authority case, Supreme Court of India made the following observation about appropriate
Government:
“Under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, the industry must be carried on only
or under the authority of the Central Government and not that the company/undertaking is
an instrumentality or an agency of the Central Government for purposes of Article 12 of the
Constitution; such an authority may be conferred either by a statute or by virtue of relationship
of principal employer and agent or delegation of power and this fact has to be ascertained on the
facts and in the circumstances of each case. In view of this conclusion, with due respect the view
expressed by the learned Judges or interpretation of the expression “appropriate Government”
in ‘Air India’ case (supra) cannot be agreed. Thus, the appropriate government for the Central
Undertaking would be those covered under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”
Note Core Activity – Andhra Pradesh Amendment (2003)
The legal interpretations of the Central Act and the judicial pronouncements thereon
had tightened the Act without giving scope for flexibility. As long as the Act is on the
statute book, courts cannot help the situation than to interpret it as per law. The Central
Government wanted to bring amendments to the Central Act, but could not do so, due to
political reasons. The Chambers of Commerce, employers’ federation, professional bodies
Contd...
86 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY