MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHINDRA and Mahindra Ltd.- 1st petitioner and its employee and shareholder Rajan Narayan 2nd petitioner - have challenged Maharashtra Government Notification dated March 26, 1991 prohibiting employment of contract labour in the process, operation and other work, namely, house keeping and sweeping, in the establishment of 1st petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that the 1st petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 2/4 wheel drive vehicles and automotive components; that the company employs a large number of workman who are directly or indirectly connected with the manufacturing processes, or are employed to perform incidental functions, such as accounts, clerical jobs and sales; that the company also engages workmen to perform functions which are entirely unrelated to or unconnected with its manufacturing activities, such as house-keeping, sweeping, garden maintenance, etc. ; that these tasks are neither incidental to the companys main functions nor are its employees or supervisors trained to efficiently perform such functions; that the company gets such jobs done by specialised contractors who supply not only the expertise for the job but also the requisite labour; that in the year 1979, the recognised union of the companys employees demanded that the house-keeping and lavatory cleaning functions be contracted out and that all company workmen engaged is these jobs be redeployed in other areas; that the company acceded to the request of the union and contract labour system was introduced for house-keeping and lavatory cleaning in or about the year 1979 or 1980; and that the General Industries Kamgar Union (respondent No. 3) demanded abolition of the contract labour system vide its letter dated January 20, 1984 and January 21, 1984. The matter was examined by the State Advisory Labour Board who advised abolition of contract labour. The notification is, inter alia, challenged on the following grounds:-

(3.) THE extracts from the recommendations of the State Contract Labour Advisory Board indicates that after giving opportunity of hearing to the union and the employer, and after considering the rival contentions, it proposed for abolition of contract labour in house-keeping and sweeping and declined to abolish contract labour system in the maintenance of gardens. After receipt of the recommendations of the Advisory Board, taking into other factors, respondent No. 1 issued the notification under challenge.