LAWS(BOM)-1997-12-15

VISHNU DATTATRAYA REDEKAR Vs. DIRECTOR NEHRU CENTRE

Decided On December 15, 1997
VISHNU DATTATRAYA REDEKAR Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR NEHRU CENTRE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for declaration that there exists relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 1 be declared as direct employer of the security guards as per the list at Ex. A within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners have also prayed for injunction against the respondent No. 1 from terminating the services of the security guards.

(2.) AS per petitioners, the respondent No. 1 is an appropriate Government for the purposes of the notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971. As per the petitioners, in view of this notification, the respondent No. 1 is prohibited from employing contract labours for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building owned by the establishment in respect of which Central Government is the owner. As per the petitioners, as per definition of the appropriate Government as amended in 1986 under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and as per the definition of the said term as it appears in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the respondent No. 1, hence, the respondent No. 1 be prohibited from employing contract labours for watching over building owned and occupied by it.

(3.) MR. Sumendra P. Verma, Joint Director (Maintenance) of the respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In affidavit-in-reply, plea of maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is not a State or instrumentality or agency of the State is raised. It is also submitted that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in respect of the respondent No. 1 for the purposes of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.