JAIHIND RAMLAKHAN Vs. COMTRUST SUPER DESIGNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27471 of 2017 is a Private Company, incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacture of cement blocks for various floor paving applications. The petitioner submits that ever since its inception, it has been engaging contract labour, both inter-state Migrant Labour (ISM) and contact labour for production in view of the seasonal and intermittent nature of production. Initially a labour contractor by the name of Sri. Thakur Prasad had supplied labourers till 2013, when the petitioner stopped engaging his services, as there were issues regarding the non-payment of service tax by the Contractor.

(2.) From 2013-2014 onwards, the 4th respondent, namely, Jaihind Ramlakhan has been supplying labour. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner seeking application under the provisions of the ISM Act. He was granted registration under Ext.P3A. The petitioner also submitted an application for registration on 13/6/2013 under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the CLRA Act'), as seen from Ext.P4. The 4th respondent, the contractor had also submitted an application on 13/6/2013 to the Registering Authority, which is produced as Ext.P4A. It is the submission of the petitioner that both Ext.P4 and Ext.P4A applications were complete in all respects including the payment of the required fees and the security deposit. Ext.P5 is the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent for the supply of contract labour. It is submitted that the 4th respondent is registered under the EPF and ESI Acts and the remittances were being made into the individual contract workers' accounts. As there were some issues with the previous contractor, the petitioner was directly making remittances under the ESI and EPF and deducting the amounts from the payments made to the 4 th respondent. The petitioner has also produced Exts.P6, P7, P8 and P9 to show such statutory payments made.

(3.) The Registering Authority under the Contract Labour Act declined registration sought by the principal employer was rejected through Exts.P10 order. The appeal preferred against the same was rejected through Ext.P13 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P10 and P13 orders were passed completely contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act. Extraneous matters, not stipulated in the Statute were considered for rejecting the application. It is also stated that the reasons in the impugned orders rejecting the application seeking registration and how the same has to be considered are all stipulated in the Statute. The Registering Authority has travelled far beyond to reject the application.