BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHARAT Earth Movers Limited and its officials are before this Court in W. P. Nos. 31454 to 31458 of 1999 for a writ of mandamus declaring that the notification bearing S. O. No. 779 (E), dated December 9, 1976 issued by union of India, is invalid and inoperative. Petitioners are also seeking writ of prohibition forbearing Hon'ble Magistrate from proceeding with the criminal proceedings in complaint No. 14460 of 1999 before the VI additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, nrupatunga Road, Bangalore, C. C. No. 22367/99 before the X Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall (complaint yet to be numbered) before the additional Judicial Magistrate, CH No. 2 and c. C. No. 816 of 1999 before the Judicial magistrate First Class, KGF and quash the said proceedings and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in addition to awarding costs.

(2.) PETITIONER is a public sector undertaking having its registered corporate office at S. R. Nagar, Bangalore. Petitioner has three factories and the petitioner 2-employer notified under the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 to the respondent 2. Petitioners 3 and 4 are designated employers to the factories at Bangalore and Mysore, respectively. The factories of the petitioners are registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (for short "act"), before the State Labour Commissioner with Registration No. AIC:b-ll/cl/2/75-76, dated February 4, 1976 and No. CLA/rc/mys/3/84-85, dated September 27, 1984. Petitioner 2 for a similar registration under the Regional Labour Commissioner No. being 7/99-C4/reg. , dated July 29, 1999. They also have factory licence under the Factories act. Petitioners say that they are covered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. After the pronouncement of judgment by the Supreme court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Others, AIR 1997 sc 645 : 1997 (9) SCC 377 : 1997-I-LLJ-1 113, the petitioner was advised by the Regional labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore that the petitioners should obtain a fresh registration from the Central Labour department. Petitioners obtained a second registration Certificate. Contractors have also filed applications for licences even though they had licences earlier from the State Government under the Act.

(3.) PETITIONERS say that notification bearing no. S. O. 779 (E), dated December 9, 1976 was issued by the Central Government in terms of section 10 of the Act. Petitioners say that they were all along under the jurisdiction of the State government for implementation of the Act. Therefore, they bona fide believe that the central Government notification would not apply to them. The Supreme Court in the Air india Statutory Corporation's case, (supra), took a view that in respect of Central government Public Sector Undertaking, central Government would be the appropriate government. In the light of this judgment the respondent 2 issued show-cause notice to petitioners dated February 19, 1999. In the notice it was stated that the petitioners had violated the said notification and cause was to be shown by them as to why they should not be prosecuted for non-compliance with the notification. Replies were filed by the petitioners in terms of Annexure-B series and c. The Regional Labour Commissioner convened a meeting and it was held in his office on February 25, 1999. Petitioners took some time to consider the legal implication. In the meanwhile respondent 2 launched criminal proceedings for violating the provisions of the act. Petitioners are questioning the initiation of these proceedings and also the notification in the light of above referred facts.