TATA REFRACTORIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE notification of the Central Government dated February 4, 1987 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in the fireclay mines of the country, is under challenge in this writ application. The main ground of attack is that the appropriate authority has not applied its mind to the relevant conditions stipulated under the Act before issuing the notification and accordingly, the impugned notification being a product of non-application of mind is illegal and invalid.

(2.) THE petitioners assert that the Tata Refractories Limited is engaged in manufacture and production of fire-bricks and other refractory materials and the Talabasta Fireclay Mine situated near Banki is a captive mine of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners have engaged two contractors with the job of removal of overburden, raising and stacking of fire-clay and dewatering of the fireclay mine. According to the petitioners, though Section 10 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government in consultation with the Central Board or the State Board, as the case may be, to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, but before exercising the said power, the pre-conditions contained in Section 10 must be complied with. But the appropriate Government in the present case before issuing notification under Annexure-1 did not take the relevant factors into consideration and without any application of mind, issued the notification in question. In course of hearing of the writ application, Mr. Das appearing for the petitioners, apart from reiterating the stand taken in the writ application, has also urged that there was no report of the Central Board and there had been no consultation and further no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before the notification in question.

(3.) THE Union Government has tiled a counter affidavit and the stand of the Union in the counter affidavit is that in view of the object of the Act and power having been conferred under Section 10, the Union Government was wholly justified in issuing the notification keeping the socio-economic condition in view. It was also alleged that the working condition of the contract labour in the fireclay mines was found to be not satisfactory for which the Central Government reconstituted the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board which in its turn constituted a Committee to go into the question of working of contract labour system in mica, magnesium, gypsum, magnesite and fireclay mines. The said Committee discussed the matter and incorporated its recommendations which were ultimately accepted by the Central Advisory Board and thereupon in consultation with the Board, the Central Government issued the notification.