INDUSTRIAL WORKERS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no.1 in this writ petition is the Industrial Workers Association and petitioner no.2 is a Member of the said Association, which claims to represent workers engaged in some of the Mica nines in Bihar. They have impugned the validity of the notification (Annexure -1) issued by the Government of India on 20th November, 1984, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulati6r1 and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The notification states that the Central Government after consultation with the Central Board prohibits the employment of contract labour in the works specified in the Schedule annexed thereto. The petitioners claim to. represent workers engaged in mica mines and are aggrieved by that part of the notification, whereby contract labour in mica mines has been prohibited in so far as they relate to raising of mica, drilling and blasting, dewatering of mines, muck removal and proceesing of mica.

(2.) THE impugned notification has been challenged on the following grounds: (i) The notification has been issued in violation of the provision of Section 10 of the Act, since it is made applicable to mica mines in general and does not relate to any particular mica mine or its establishment. The notification under Section 10 can apply only to particular establishments mentioned therein, and not generally to mines from which a particular mineral is extracted. (ii) The notification has been issued without any verification or finding as regards the condition of work or the benefit provided to the workmen in any particular establishment. The notification should have been issued only after verification of these facts and after making an enquiry applying the principles of natural justice. (iii) The Central Advisory Board was not duly constituted in accordance with the provision of Section 3 of the Act.

(3.) SO far as the first submission is concerned, the Act defines an establishment to mean (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. Section 10 provides that the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. The submission urged before us is that in respect of each establishment, meaning thereby, each distinct unit, where contract workers are engaged, the Central Government must issue a separate notification. Counsel submitted that there are large number of mica mines in the State of Bihar and therefore the use of the word 'establishment' in Section 10 must mean a distinct establishment. Therefore in respect of each unit, a separate notification must be issued by the appropriate Government, having regard to the provision of Section 10. of the Act. We are not inclined to accept the submission because 'establishment' has been defined in wide terms and includes any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. In our view mica mines is covered by the term 'establishment' because the mining industry is carried on at such place. They are, therefore, an establishment within the meaning of the Act. We do not subscribe to the view that under Section 10 of the Act the appropriate Government is required to issue a separate notification in respect of each and every unit of mica industry where contract labour is employed. Section 10 enables' the appropriate Government to issue a notification prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, meaning thereby any place or places where the activities enumerated therein are carried out. The first submission must, therefore, be rejected.