MEHROTRA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS. Indian Explosives Ltd. , Fertilizer Division deals in the manufacture and sale of the Chemical Fertilizer popularly known as urea. Its factory is situate at Panki, about 13 Kms. from Kanpur. Urea is manufactured in the factory and is packed in polythenelined gunny bags in the factory premises by mechanised operations. Thereafter these bags of urea, each weighing 50kgs. are diverted by mechanised conveyor belts to the railway siding. The company aforesaid engages a permanent labour force for loading these packed urea bags from conveyor belt to the railway wagons. According to the case of the company, this permanent labour force known as "loaders" are engaged in specialised operation of unloading these urea bags from the conveyor belts to the wagons. Each loader handles one bag at a time. The conveyor belt being at a height of 5'. the bag is taken on the shoulder by the loader and it is stock piled in the wagon. A group of four loaders work continuously at a time on one conveyor belt. The time interval between the coming of successive bag is 3 seconds. Thus 20 bags are loaded In a minute by the group of four of the company's loaders. Since the capacity of the railway wagon is normaly 24 Tons, it takes about 24 minutes to complete the loading of one wagon with urea bags of 50kg. weight each. After completing the loading of one wagon, the four loaders take rest and are replaced by another batch of four loaders. In case wagons are not available the company's loaders load these bags in trucks. The loaded truck is then sent either directly to the destination outside the factory from the packing plant or in the alternative to the Non Duty Paid Shed (N. D. P. S.) where these bags are again unloaded by the labour employed by the contractor Messrs. Mehrotra Enterprises. One truck is unloaded by a group of 16 labourers. The bags are unloaded by the contractor's labour either on their back or on their head to be stock piled in the godown. There. after on the availability of wagons or trucks, the contractor's labour again load them therein for onward destination.

(2.) THE Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 (Act No. 37 of 1970) was passed by Parliament and received the assent of the president on 5th September, 1970. Under Section 35 of the said Act the State of Uttar Pradesh hag framed "the Uttar Pradesh Contract labour Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975" On 10th March, 197? the Fertilizer Workers' Union filed an application before the Labour commissioner, U. P. alleging that the workeas employed by the contractor Messrs. Mehrotra Enterprises should be paid the same wages as are paid to the workmen of the Indian Explosives Ltd. under the provisions of Rule 25 (2) (v) of the aforesaid Rules. Notice was issued on this application on 24th March, 1977. The Fertilizer Workers' union filed their written statement on 4th April, 1977. Thereafter the indian Explosives Ltd. as well as Messrs. Mehrotra Enterprises filed their written statement on 12th April, 1977. It appeals that as per directions of the Labour Commissioner Sri P. S. Misra, Conciliation officer, Kanpur Region, Kanpur made a spot inspection and submitted his report to the Labour Commissioner. The record of the case was summoned by us and we have perused this report Thereafter on 28th april, 1977 the Labour Commissioner, U. P. gave an award by which he held that the labour employed by the company and that employed by the con-tractor ware engaged in similar kind of work and as such they were entitled to the benefit of Rule 25 (2) (v) of the U. P. Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition Rules, 1975. Aggrieved there by Writ petition No. 1606 of 1977 has been filed by Mehrotra Enterprises (hereinafter called the contractor) and Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1977 has been filed by the Indian Explosives Ltd, (hereinafter called the company ). Both these writ petitions are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also carefully considered the documents on the record. The petitioner's counsel has very strenuously argued that the finding of the Labour Commissioner to the effect that the company's loaders and the contractor's labour were doing the same and similar kind of work, is legally erroneous on the face of the record. He has urged that the labour employed by the company is skilled labour while that employed by the con. tractor is unskilled labour. He has made several references to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is support of the proposition that the loaders of the company being skilled labour were entitled to higher wages than the unskilled labour employed by the contractor to which reference shall be made hereinafter. He has attempted to define the concept of the word '"skill" with reference to various dictionaries dealing with the subject. He has urged that the company's labour in handling the urea bags on his shoulder from the conveyer belt displays a greater degree of promptness, attention and timely movements which almost matches human performance with the speed of a machine. This synchronization, he submits, is the result, of great skill on the part of the company's leaders which distinguishes them from the loaders of the contractor. On the other hand, the respondents counsel and the counsel for the State have urged that the labour Commissioner was fully justified in extending the benefit of rule 25. 21 (v) to the labour of the company in (sic) as the loaders of the contractor performed a similar kind of work as the loaders employed by the company. Reliance for this purpose was placed to a great extent upon the report of spot inspection made by the conciliation Officer. Respondents counsel have also urged that this court will not interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court unless it is of the opinion that the said Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or there is a legal error apparent on the face of the record. They have also strenuously argued that in construing welfare legislation the Court should abopt she beneficial rule of construction for farthering the policy and object of the act in favour of the employees.