GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, The General Employees Association, a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, has challenged order contained in Letter No. S-16014/22/87/lw, dated June 8/9, 1988 of Government of India. Ministry of Labour, refusing to prohibit employment of contract labour in the canteen attached to the refineries of the establishment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Mahul, Bombay, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts as unfolded in the writ petition, briefly, are:---Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , respondent No. 2, is a wholly owned statutory Corporation of the Government of India which came into existence following the take over of the erstwhile Esso. Inc. , Caltex (India) Ltd. and Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. , by the Government of India, pursuant to the Esso (Acquisition on Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd.) and of the undertakings in India of Caltex (Indian) Ltd. Act, 1977. Suvidha Catering Service, respondent No. 3, is the catering contractor of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has a number of establishments in Bombay, namely, at Mahul, Sewree, Wadala and Mazagaon, Refineries and Liquified Petroleum Gas Bottling Plant at Mahul. All these establishments of respondent No. 2 are factories within the meaning of section 2 (m) of the Factories Act, 1948. Respondent No. 2 has also other establishments at Petroleum House and Arcadia at Churchgate, Bombay, and at Hindustan Bhavan, Ballard Estate, Bombay. These establishments of respondent No. 2 are commercial establishments registered as such under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1946. The total number of workmen in each of the establishments, namely, those at Mahul, Sewree, Wadala and Mazagaon, exceed 500 and those establishments are factories within the meaning of section 2 (m) of the Factories Act. Respondent No. 2 is, therefore, bound and liable to run and maintain a canteen at each of the establishments under the provisions of the Factories Act. Respondent No. 2 is also departmentally running canteens at its establishments at Mazagaon and Sewree terminals. Respondent No. 2 is also running canteens at its establishments at Mahul through the contractor, namely, Suvidha Catering Service respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 supplies to respondent No, 3, free of cost, liquified petroleum gas, electricity, water , utensils/crockery, furniture and fixtures. Respondent No. 2 also supplies to respondent No, 3 materials and provisions required for preparation of food articles. Respondent No. 3 prepares food articles and beverages, etc. , from the materials so supplied by respondent No. 2 for serving the same to the workmen and officers of respondent No. 2 employed in its establishments at Mahul. Respondent No. 2 exercises complete control and supervision over the quality and quantity of materials and provisions purchased and released to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 has constituted a Canteen Committee at each of its establishments wherein a canteen is established, notwithstanding whether the canteen is run departmentally or through a contractor. Each such canteen is composed of representatives of the management of respondent No. 2 and representative of the workmen of respondent No. 2 employed in the concerned establishment. The canteen committee takes decisions in respect of, inter alia, menu of food articles to be prepared and served, number of workmen to be employed in each section of canteen, review of quality of food articles and review of service in the canteen. The work performed by the workmen in the canteens, irrespective of the fact whether they are run and maintained by respondent No. 2 departmentally or through a contractor, is of continuous and perennial nature and not casual or intermittent. The workmen employed in the canteen at its establishments at Mahul through respondent No. 3 performed the same or similar kind of work as is performed by the workmen directly employed by respondent No. 2. However, the wages paid and other service conditions of the workmen employed through the contractor are far less favourable than those applicable to the workmen directly employed by respondent No. 2 to do the same or similar kind of work. The Trade Unions of respondent No. 2 took exception to the discrimination and exploitation of the workmen employed through contractor. The said Trade Union arrived at a settlement with respondent No. 2 on December 11, 1986. Clause of the settlement is in the following terms:---

(3.) THE passing of the Contract Labour Act is basically as a consequence of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Standard Vacuum Refinery Co. of India Limited and its Workmen (A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 948 ). . The statements of objects and reasons of the Contract Labour Act clearly establish that the recommendations of the Planning Commission related inter alia to under-taking of studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of contract labour, progressive abolition of the Contract Labour system and improvement of service conditions of contract labour where the abolition is not possible. The long title of the Contract Labour Act also faithfully reflects in brief the objects and reasons for enactment of the Contract Labour Act.