INDIAN OIL BLENDING LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitioner is a company by the pen of the Senior Plant Manager of the same. He has been described as the Constituted Attorney of the same. In the said writ petition, the company has thrown a challenge in respect of a notification dated 13th July, 1998 issued by the Director General, Labour Welfare, Government of India under which employment in the petitioner company of the contract labour in the works or jobs of loading, unloading and carrying empty and filled drums and raw materials was prohibited by applying section 10(1) under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. According to the petitioner company, a Committee was formed for the purpose of recommendation to the appropriate Government in exercise of the power conferred under section 5 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, in terms of reference hereunder :

(2.) Chief Personnel, Coal India Limited and a representative of Trade Union Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and a Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) were the members of such Committee.

(3.) Such Committee studied the viability and furnished a report by saying that the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that in view of the working system of IOBL factory at Calcutta the job of loading, unloading, carrying empty and filled drums and raw materials etc., through contract labour system, deserved no consideration for abolition. Although the report was said to be unanimous but the representative of the Union, not being present, did not sign in such report and forwarded his dissenting note subsequently in the form of a letter to the Secretary of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board. Incidentally, Central Advisory Contract Labour Board formed a Committee through the pen of the Joint Director and Secretary. The Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, made an in- depth study on the basis of various enquiries and ultimately recommended to the Government that the policy of contract labour in the petitioner company in the jobs of loading, unloading, carrying empty and filled drums and raw materials should be abolished and in that way accepted the dissenting note of the representative of the Union. At the time of consideration of the report of the Committee, the Board found that the representative of the Union was absent from the meeting and deferred the meeting for due consideration of the report but subsequently in absence of the representative of the management accepted the dissenting note of the representative of the Union. However, following the recommendation of the Board a notification was issued on 13th July, 1998 and the employment of the contract labour was prohibited from the aforesaid works of the company. Such issuance of notification was challenged under the present writ petition in the year, 2000 and the Rule was obtained from the competent jurisdiction of this High Court as far back as on 22th March, 2000. Such writ petition was subsequently dismissed and again restored. At the present moment, it is lying with an application being CAN 5117 of 2004 for the purpose of obtaining the interim order in respect of the notification dated 13th July, 1998. Such application was filed on 22nd June, 2004, This Court feels that since the affidavits were exchanged in the main writ petition, and no interim order was passed in the year, 2000 in respect of a notification of the year, 1998, now at this belated stage such prayer for interim order should not be allowed but the writ petition is to be heard. Accordingly, parties argued at length on that score.