Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 98 (JHR)

Chetna Mazdoor Sangh v. Union Of India

2004-01-23

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application filed by the petitioners, a writ of mandamus has been sought commanding upon the respondents to issue a notification abolishing contract labour in respect of all categories of employment that are perennial in nature and which have been specifically identified by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and further for a direction declaring that the settlement dated 30.7.1975, 19.6.1979 and 18.5.1995 are binding upon the respondents. 2. The petitioners case is that the members of the petitioners Union have been engaged by the respondents through contractors as contract labour for the work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting of the building owned and occupied by the respondents 3 to 6, namely, Bokaro Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited. Their further case is that the Central Government exercising its power under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and on the recommendation of the Central Advisory Board issued a notification prohibiting employment of contract labour on and from 9.12.1976 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the building owned and occupied by the establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Act is the Central Government. It is alleged that inspite of the aforesaid notification and inspite of the repeated demand for regular absorption of the employees doing such works which are perennial in nature, the said respondents continued to employ contract labour for the above job. 3. Mr. K.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in course of argument fairly conceded that although the ratio decided in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 has been reversed by the decision rendered in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1 , still this Court can issue direction for absorption of the members of the petitioners Union for the reason that they have worked for more than 240 days. 4. I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel. In view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in Steel Authority of Indias case (supra), this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners, much less the reliefs sought for in the writ application. 4. I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel. In view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in Steel Authority of Indias case (supra), this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners, much less the reliefs sought for in the writ application. Their Lordships have categorically held that neither Section 10 of the Act nor any other provision in the said Act, expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing notification by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. 5. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is dismissed accordingly.