SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant impugned the Notification, dated Nov., 29, 1985 (copy Annexure P/1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the State of Haryana, prohibiting employment of contract labour in 22 food storage depots including rail heads of the Food Corporation of India, in civil Writ Petition No, 694 of 1986. The Notification was issued by that State of Haryana in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred 1o as the Act).

(2.) Facts relevant to determine the issues raised in this Letters Patent Appeal, in brief, are ; the State of Haryana vide its Notification, dated May 18, 1985 (Copy Annexure P/3) constituted the State Advisory Contract Labour Board, known as the State Board. On May 29, 1985, it constituted a Committee, allegedly in compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court, dated March 1, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 13508 of 1983 Food Corporation of Indian Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of India and others , whereby a Writ of Mandamus was issued for appointing a Committee under Sec. 5 of the Act within three months from the date of order to enquire whether contract labour in the Food Corporation of India should be abolished. The Committee was required to submit a report within four months of its constitution and the State Government was dieted to take action on such report within two months thereafter. In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Committee was constituted consisting of Join-Labour Commissioner as the Chairman, a representative of the Food Corporation of India, one of the partners of the Labour Contract Firm and two representatives of the Trade and Workers Union. The Committee after deliberations held an enquiry into the working conditions of the contract labour in various other institutions and organisations in the State, the advisability of its abolition and recommended that the employment of contract labour should be prohibited in 24 Food Storage Depots including rail head depots either owned or hired by the Food Corporation of India in Haryana Region, though the representative of the Food Corporation of | India recorded a dissenting note. The report of the Committee resulted in . issuing the impugned Notification by the State of Haryana prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the depots and rail head depots owned or hired by the Food Corporation of India. It would be apposite to refer to an Ordinance, dated Jan. 28, 1986 promulgated by the President of India, amending the provisions of section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 by which in section 2 of the Act in sub-section (1) for clause (a), the clause notified was substituted. Later, the Act was amended by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Amendment Ordinance, 1986. It came into force on Jan. 28, 1986. by which in section 2, subsection (1), clause (a) was substituted. The substituted clause runs as under : "

(3.) The learned Single Judge finding no scope for interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction declined to quash the Notification. The learned Single Judge observed that at the time of issuance of Notification, dated Nov. 29, 1985 (Copy Annexure P/1) prohibiting the contract labour, the appropriate Government as envisaged by the Act was the State Government and it was so found by the Supreme Court. It was only by way of amendment which became effective from Jan. 28, 1986 that the appropriate Government has been changed from State Government to Central Government. The factum of prohibiting the contract labour vide impugned Notification. Copy Annexure P/1, was complete and fate accomplished. It was, therefore, effective for all in cots and purposes and was in no way either eclipsed or obliterated either by the Amendment, Ordinance or the Act. It was absorbed that in view of the Committee's report whereby it was opined that the work on the food storage depots and rail heads stated in Annexure P/1 was of perennial nature, the contract labour was prohibited by the State which was the appropriate Government at that point of time. Employment of contract labour by other establishments had no effect. on the prohibition of employment of contract labour in case of the appellant, in view of the volume of work available at the appellant's depots or rail heads which by itself made these depots/rail heads a class in itself. Formation of the Committee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court was found to be valid. Even otherwise, the formation of the Committee was held to have been ratified as having been approved by the State Board on Nov. 18, 1985.