9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. The other definitions relevant to the meaning of a contractor are establishment, principal employer and workmen. "Establishment" as defined in section 2 (e) of the Act means (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. "Principal employer" as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act means (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf, (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named, (iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named, and (iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... building the petitioners are in relation to the establishment contractors who undertake to produce a given result for the bank. The petitioners are also persons who undertake to produce the result through contract labour. The petitioners may appoint sub-contractors to do the work. To accede to the petitioners' contention that the construction work which Is away from the place where the industry, trade, business of the establishment is carried on is not the work of the establishment is to render the words "work of any establishments devoid of ordinary meaning. The construction of the building is the work of the establish- ment. The building is the property of the establishment. Therefore, the construction work is the work of the establishment. That is why a workman is deemed to be employed as contract labour in connection with the work of an establishment. The place where business or rade or industry or manufacture or occupation is carried on is not Synonymous with "the, work of the establishment" when a contractor employs contract labour in connection with the work of the establishment. The error of the petitioners lies in equating the work of the establishment with the actual pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blishment will consider whether the work is of a Perennial nature in that establishment or work is done ordinarily, through regular workmen in that establishment. The words "work of an establishment " which are used in defining workmen as contract labour being employed in connection with the work of an establishment indicate that the work of the establishment there is not the same as work in the establishment contemplated in section 10 of the Act. The words "other work in any establishment" in section 10 are to be, construed as ejusdom generis. The expression "other work" in the collection of words process, operation or other work in any, establishment occurring in section 10 has not the same meaning as the expression "in connection with the work of an establishment", spoken in relation to workmen or contractor. A contractor under the Act in relation to an establishment is a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment through contract labour. A contractor is a person who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment. The entire context shows that the work of the establishment is the work site, The work site is an establishment and belongs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shment. The petitioners are contractors within the meaning of the Act. The work which the petitioners undertake is the work of the establishment. The second contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are unconstitutional. It is said that the application of the Act in respect of pending work of construction amounts to unreasonable restriction on the right of the contractors under Article 19 (1) (g). The bill was introduced in 1967. It was passed in 1970, There is no unreasonableness in that it applies to pending contracts. The pendency of cont is not a relevant consideration. The subject-matter of the legislation is not contract. it is contract labour. There is no retrospective operation. There are no materials to show that the petitioners will suffer. The contractors have not shown the contracts to show the rates of work. It is also not known whether the petitioners have clauses in the contract to ask for increase of rates in changed circumstances. That is usual in contracts. The petitioners during the years 1967 to 1970 knew that the legislative measure was going to find place in the statute book. The crucial point is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the general public in determining the reasonableness of such requirements. There is a rational relation between the impugned Act and the object to be achieved and the provision is not in excess of that object. There is no violation of Article 14. The classification is not arbitrary. The legislature has made uniform laws for all contractors. Section 16 of the Act confers power on the Government to make rules that in every establishment to which the Act applies wherein contract labour numbering one hundred or more are employed by a contractor, one or more canteens shall be provided and maintained by the contractor for the use of such contract labour. Rule 42 relates to canteens and Rule 43 relates to dining halls. Rule 42 states that where the contract labour is likely to continue for six months or more and wherein the contract labour numbers 100 or more, a canteen shall be provided as mentioned therein. This rule indicates that where a fairly stable work goes on for six months and the number of labour is 100 or more, a canteen is to be provided. It is said that it is difficult to find space in Bombay to provide for canteens. It is also said that if a road is to be constructed, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) are challenged as unreasonable. Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) states that wages, conditions of service of workmen who do same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed in the principal employer's establishment shall be the same. In case of disagreement with regard to type of work, it is provided that the same shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner whose decision shall be final. Rule '25 (2) (v) (b) states that in other cases, the wages rates, holidays and conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be such as may be specified by the Chief Labour Commissioner. There is an explanation to this clause that while determining wages and conditions of service under Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) the Chief Labour Commissioner shall have regard to wages and conditions of service in similar em- ployment. This is reasonable. The complaint against Rule 25 (2) (v)(b) is that there is no provision for appeal. It is not difficult to determine and decide cases of this type. The Commissioner of Labour has special knowledge. It will be a question from statute to statute, from fact to fact as to whether absence of a provision for appeal makes the statute bad. The provisions c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econdly, it is said that there is no obligation on the Government to pay to the workmen or to utilise for the workmen any part of the security deposit so forfeited. Thirdly, it is said that the breach of the conditions of licence or provision of the Act is made punishable under the penal provisions of the Act, viz. section 24 and yet Rule 24 unreasonably provides for the forfeiture of deposit. Fourthly, it is said that any breach regarding the welfare of the workmen apart from being penal is safeguarded by the requirement that the principal employer would perform the obligation and recover the amount from the contractor. Fifthly, section 20 of the Act provides that where the benefit for contract labour is not provided by the contractor, the principal employer may provide the same and deduct the expenses so incurred from amounts payable to the contractor. Sixthly, it is said that theprovision regarding forfeiture of' deposit has no rational connection between the sum required to be deposited and the number of workmen nor does the same have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved since the Government is not bound to utilise the amount for workmen, concerned. Finally, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers is constitutionally valid because .the forfeiture amounts to departmental penalty. Forfeiture means not merely that which is actually taken from a man by reason of some breach of condition but includes also that which becomes liable to be so taken as a penalty. The rate of Rs. 30/- per workman does not offend Article 14. The rate is relatable to the classification of big and small contractors according to the number employed by them. No additional burden is imposed by the rules. Further orders for forfeiture are appealable. Forfeiture itself is after giving the party reasonable opportunity of showing cause against "the action proposed. Secondly the condition of forfeiture is that the failure to comply with the condition is without reasonable cause. The provisions of the Act with regard to forfeiture do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. The rules are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The forfeiture of security is for due performance or as a penalty on the licensee. The order for forfeiture is an administrative penalty. The provisions contained in sections 23 to 26 of the Act indicate that contravention of the provisions regarding employment of contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
