TATA CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in all these Special Civil Applications common grounds and identical issues have been raised, I consider it to be appropriate to take them together for hearing and decide the same under this common order. The facts of the case are being taken from Special Civil Application No. 1955 of 1994 :

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Company limited by shares and is incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is one of the share holders of the Company -petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 3 provides contract labour to the Company in connection with works specified in the impugned notification in its Lime and Dolomite Mines. The petitioner No. 1 -Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy chemicals, e.g. inorganic, photographic, insecticides, pesticides, and other miscellaneous chemicals including caustic soda and soda ash. The petitioner No. 1 claims itself to be the biggest soda ash manufacturer in India. The limestone is the basic raw material for manufacturing soda ash, as per the petitioners' case and that raw material it needs in large quantity. The petitioner No. 1 -Company holds no lease. Limestone mines centered in Junagadh and Jamnagar Districts. It also purchases limestones from private lease holders of limestone mines which engage contract labour for working in the mines. The petitioner No. 1 made a grievance that the impugned notification has been published by respondent -Union of India without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner -Company and without the consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board. The Company submitted to the second respondent, a representation dated 21st June 1993, and it further made an application dated 14th July 1993 for exemption under Section 34 of the Act. The third respondent by its letter dated 20th July 1993 advised the Company to stop employment of contract labour for the work of limestone, raising an excavation, including breaking, sizing, etc. The Company vide its letter dated 4th August 1993, informed the third respondent that the Company had made application for exemption under Section 34 of the Act, that the same was under consideration and that the third respondent should bear with the Company till the Company receives reply to the said application. The Company received from the Section Officer in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, a letter dated 12th August 1993, informing the Company that the matter was under consideration of the Government. Since no response was received from respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Application No. 940 of 1993 before this Court and this Court on 13/30 September 1993, issued notice pending admission returnable on 11 -10 -93. That petition is stated to be pending before this Court. On 24 -1 -94, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed an application being Civil Application No. 190 of 1994 for restraining the third respondent from instituting or proceeding with any prosecution against the Company for any violation of the impugned notification and for staying, qua, the Company, pending hearing and final disposal of the said petition, operation, implementation and execution of the said Notification and provisions contained therein and from enforcing and implementing the same against the Company. This Court, on 27 -1 -94, issued Notices of that application to the third respondent returnable on 4 -2 -94. On 29 -1 -94, the petitioner No. 3 received a copy of the order dated 20 -1 -94 revoking the licence of the petitioner No. 3 with immediate effect and advising the petitioner No. 3 not to engage any contract labour in the prohibited categories under the impugned Notification. Alongwith copy of the letter dated 20 -1 -94 there is endorsement that the certificate of registration of the Company bearing No. ALC/ADPR/Regn: : 15/NCM/91 dated 19th July 1991, stands revoked in respect of the above -stated categories with immediate effect. Further advice has been given to the petitioner No. 1 not to engage contract labour in the said prohibited categories and to amend its certificate of registration accordingly. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 and contractor M/s. Sharda Trading Company, made an application being Civil Application No. 251 of 1994, in this Court for adding to Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 1993, the said contractors as co -petitioners and the respondent No. 4 herein as respondent No. 4 to the said petition. The said Civil Application came to be decided by this Court under the order dated 1 -2 -94 and that application was rejected. Hence this petition by the petitioners.

(3.) This petition has been contested by respondents and a detailed reply to the same has been filed. In the reply, the respondents have come up with the case that vide subsequent Notification dated 4th July 1996. Entry No. 2 in the impugned Notification has been substituted by the new Entry. It has further been stated that the Entry No. 2 has been amended by the Central Government as various representations were received against the Notification dated 17th March 1993. Another contention has been raised that the petition filed by petitioners in a form in view of the subsequent Notification dated 4th July 1996, does not survive and is liable to be dismissed. On merits it has been contended that the Notification dated 17th March 1993 has been issued after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board. That Notification subsequently on representations filed by the affected persons has been modified to the extent where it was found necessary. The power of the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act is there for prohibiting of contract labour in the particular categories of employment and when the Central Government has exercised that power, in such matters, the petitioners may not have any much say.