UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMARDEEP TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High court committed any error of law in quashing the notice/order dated 27/5/1975 issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) , Ministry of Labour, government of India, directing the respondents, who are contractors, to pay the workers engaged by them for carrying on such activities as ash pit cleaning, cinder picking, coal handling etc. at the same rate as was paid by the Railways to their workmen in Class IV as the nature of work of these workers was same or similar, within the meaning of Rule 25 (2 (v) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules') framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, to the kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, namely, Railways were being paid.

(2.) What is the exact import of the words "same or similar" used in Rule 25 (2 (v) (a) is not necessary to be decided as on facts found the order of the High court does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. The basis in the order/notice of the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) for directing the respondents to pay same or similar amount was founded on equating theworkers engaged by the respondents with the unskilled workers employed by the principal employer, namely, the Railways. The categorisation of the workers into skilled and unskilled by the Railways was very wide and that by itself could not furnish foundation for coming to the conclusion that the workers engaged by the respondents were performing the same or similar work. The High court went into detail and recorded the finding that even though the Railways was the principal employer and the respondents had taken the contract from the Railways for carrying on handling work which was done by the Railways directly, but the nature of duties of the workers engaged by the respondents could not be treated as same and similar by categorising the Railway workers into skilled and unskilled and then treating the workers engaged by the respondents in the category of unskilled workers. Therefore, without deciding the question of law as to how expression "same or similar" in Rule 25 of the Rules should be understood, we are of the opinion that in view of the findings recorded by the High court, the order cannot be interfered with.

(3.) In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The appeals against Respondents 4, 5 and 14 are dismissed for non-prosecution. Parties shall bear their own costs.