PETITIONER:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS' UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1985
BENCH:
KHALID, V. (J)
BENCH:
KHALID, V. (J)
DESAI, D.A.
CITATION:
1985 AIR 488 1985 SCR (3) 150
1985 SCC (2) 294 1985 SCALE (1)383
ACT:
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Section 2 (1) (a) read with sections 2 (1) (e) 1(4) (a), (b)
and Proviso and 1(5) (a) and (b) and the Explanation-Terms
'appropriate Government', clarified-Appropriate Government
for the purposes of taking necessary steps under the Act of
1970 to redress the grievances of the contract labours
working with the Food Corporation of India's establishment
situated in the States is the respective State Government
under sub-section 2 of section 2 (a) and not the Central
Government-Canon of statutory construction explained- Any
industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government" which is in pari materia with Section 2 (a) (l)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, meaning of-Nature of
relief that can be qranted, outlined
HEADNOTE:
The Food Corporation of India has been entrusted with
the duty of procuring foodgrains and its movement and
distribution throughout the country. The Corporation employs
for the discharge of this work three types of labourers; (1)
departmentalised labour who are its regular employees; (2)
direct paid labour; and (3) Contract labour who are employed
by the Corporation through the intermediary of contractors.
The petitioners who come under the third category have been
trying to pursuade the corporation for progressive
departmentalisation of its labour Or in the alternative
extending to them the benefits of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. By this writ petition
they prayed for a writ of mandamus either to the Union
Government or to the concerned State Governments, to extend
to them the benefits of the Act, for a direction to the
corporation to pay them the same wages as are paid to the
departmentalised labour and other reliefs. The Corporation
pleaded that the appropriate Government for the purpose of
the claims of the petitioners working in its establishment
in a State a is the concerned State Government and not the
Central Government, which stand was adopted by ihe 15th
Respondent State of Madhya Pradesh and the 21st Respondent
State of Punjab through their respective affidavits and
therefore disowned its responsibility. The other States did
not file their counter at all.
Allowing the petition, the Court,
151
^
HELD: 1 Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 enables the appropriate Government
by a suitable notification after making a study of the
conditions laid down therein to prohibit employment of
contract labour in any 'process, operation, or other work'
in any establishment. The petitioners, complaint that
despite several disputes and representations made to all the
State Governments as well as the Union of India, nothing has
so fare been done to give the benefit of Section 10 to the
contract labour in the Corporation by playing hide and seek,
one pointing to the other as the appropriate Government for
redressal of their grievances is justified. [155D - E]
2.1 On the interpretation of the relevant sections
namely, I (4), 1 (5), 2 (1) (a) and 2 (a) (e) of the
Contract Labour Act, 1970 read with section 2 (a) (1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 "appropriate Government" for
the purpose of this case pertaining to the regional offices
and warehouses of the Food Corporation of India in the
respective States is the State Government and not the
Central Government. [161D]
2.2 Section 1(4) deals with the application of the Act
to establishments and contractors answering to the
description given therein and certainly the establishment of
the Food Corporation and the contractors it employs come
within the ambit of the provisions of this Act. [156F]
2.3 Various warehouses, godowns and places alike sot up
by the Corporation would be establishments where the trade
of the corporation is being carried on and within the
meaning of the term "establishment" in section 2 (1) (e)
(ii) of the Act. [158EI
2.4 It is a well-established canon of statutory
construction that legislature is known to avoid tautology
and redundancy. If Food Corporation of India was an industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government, it would have been comprehended in the first
part of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, but that being not the position, it was
specifically referred to by name. However, the expression
'appropriate Government' in the Contract Labour Act, 1970
does not include by name the Food Corporation of India as
the one in respect of which the appropriate Government would
be the Central Government, while it is mentioned so in the
definition in the Industrial Disputes Act even though both
the statutes use the general expression 'any industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government.' [169C - E]
2.5 Looking to the placement of the expression in the
definition clause of the Contract Labour Act and the purpose
for which it is enacted, the expression 'any industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government' mean 'pursuant to the authority, such as where
an agent or a servant acts under or pursuant to the
authority of his principal or master ' Since the various
establishments of the Corporation do not pertain to any
152
controlled industry, sub-clause (1) of sub-section (1) of
section 2 (a) of the Act is not attracted and therefore, the
case would be governed by the residuary provision in sub-
section (2) and the State Government would be the
appropriate Government. Further in the counter affidavit
filed by `the Corporation it is stated that this question
was examined by the Labour Ministry which had clarified that
the respective State Governments are the 'appropriate
Governments' for the corporation's establishments situated
in the State. The Union of India has correctly taken a
similar stand and the States of Punjab and Madhya Pradesh
have also affirmed it. [160B; F;G; 161A-B]
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bihar
and Ors., 11969] 3 SCR 995; Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh,
Nagpur v. The Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr., AIR 1984 SC
1813, applied.
3 In the instant case, it will not be possible or
proper for the Court to grant the reliefs prayed by the
petitioner in full on the materials on record, the materials
being scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive
adjudication of the claims of the petitioners. The Act
contains provisions enabling the appropriate Government to
get reports as to how to implement the provisions of the
Act. The machinery provided for by the Act has not been
brought into action in any State except the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Therefore the course open lo the Court is to issue
appropriate direction to the State Governments except Madhya
Pradesh State to constitute committees within three months,
under section 5 of the Act to make necessary enquiries, and
to submit a report within four months of its constitution as
to whether it would be possible to abolish contract labour
in the Corporation altogether. [161 F-G]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13508 of 1983
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.
Krishan Dayal, N.C. Talukdar, R.N. Poddar, Y P. Rao,
A.K Sanghi and R. K. Mehta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. This is representative action brought on
behalf of the Contract ‘Labourers, working with the Food
Corporation of India, the first respondent in the writ
petition, distressed by the unhelpful attitude of both the
Central and the State Government in not redressing their
grievances for either departmentalising them or in the
alternative extending to them the benefit of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘The
Act‘).
153
The petitioners complaint is that the Central and the State
Governments play hide and seek, one pointing to the other as
the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act
and thus denying to them what is their dues.
2. The first respondent is the Food Corporation of
India (herein after called ‘The Corporation’); the second
respondent: Union of India, the third respondent: Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central) and respondents 4 to 22,
various State Governments. The Corporation has been
entrusted by the second respondent with the duty of
procuring food grains and its movement and distribution
throughout the country. The corporation employs for the
discharge of this work three types of labourers: (1)
departmentalised labour who are its regular employees; (2)
direct paid labour; and (3) contract labour who are employed
by the Corporation through the intermediery of contractors.
The petitioners have been trying to pursuade the Corporation
for progressive departmantalisation of its labour. They,
however, did not succeed. Their grievance is that even the
limited benefits available to them under the provisions of
the Act have not been extended to them. By this writ
petition they pray, for a writ of mandamus either to the
Union Government or to the State Governments, to extend to
them the benefits of the Act, for a direction to the
Corporation to pay them the same wages as are paid to the
departmentalised labour and for other reliefs.
3. In a detailed counter-affidavit, the Corporation has
pleaded that the appropriate Government for the propose of
the claims of the petitioners is the State Government and
not the Central Government, and that it is not practicable
for the Corporation to employ the labour whom the petitioner
represent as departmental labour since the nature of the
operations are seasonal, sporadic and varied from region to
region, that the work of the Corporation fluctuates in
volume at different places and at different points depending
upon the procurement, movement and off take of food grains.
It is farther stated that it is not easy for abolition of
Contract labour employed by the Corporation since other like
organisations connected with the Government of India also
empley contract labourers and hence abolition af contract
labour cannot be consideder in isolation for the Corporation
alone. Among the State Governments:, the 15th respondent
(the State of Madhya Pradesh) and the 21st respondent (the
State of Punjab) have filed their respective counter-
affidavits.
154
4. In its counter – affidavits the State of Madhya
Pradesh has stated that the said Government have framed
rules under the Act (which came into force on 10.2 1971) for
implementation of its provisions, that the Act is being
implemented in its entirety in the said State, that it has
constituted an independent State Advisory Contract Labour
Board which was advising the State Government on such
matters as are referred to it, that it has also constituted
a committee on 31st March 1981 in exercise of the powers
conferred on it under Section 5 of the Act, and that in the
case of 22 branches, prosecutions were launched for non-
compliance with the provisions of the Act
5 In the Counter – affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No. 21, (the State of Punjab) it is stated that
the appropriate Government for the purpose of the Act for
the regional office of the Corporation in the Punjab State,
is the State Government.
6. Before considering the claims of the petitioners, we
will have a look at some of the provisions of the Act, which
if properly implemented would have, in some measure at
least, satisfied the labour. Section 10 of the Act reads as
follows:
” 10. Prohibition of employment af contract
labour-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, 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.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-
section (l) in relation to an establishment, the
appropriate Government shall have regard to the
conditions of work and a benefits provided for the
contract labour in that establishment and other
relevant factors. such as-
(a) whether the process, operation or other
work is incidental to or necessary for the industry,
trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is
carried on in the establishment;
155
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that
is to say, it is so of sufficient duration having
regard to the nature of industry, trade, business,
manufacture or occupation carried on in that
establishment;
(c) whether it is done ordinarily through
regular workmen in that establishment or an
establishment similar thereto;
(d) whether it is sufficient to employ
considerable number of whole time workmen.
Explanation-If a question arises whether any
process or operation or other work is of perennial
nature, the decision of the appropriate Government
thereon shall be final.’
This section enables the appropriate Government by a
suitable notification after making a study of the conditions
laid down therein 1) to prohibit employment of contract
labour in any ‘process, operation or other work’ in any
establishment. The petitioners grievance is that despite
several disputes and representations made to all the State
Governments as well as the Union of India, nothing has so
far been done to give the benefit of Section 10 to be
contract labour in the Corporation. This complaint appears
to be justified.
7. We will now examine the relevant provisions of the
Act to find out as to which are the industries or
establishments to which the Act applies and which is the
appropriate Government in its contemplation, on whom is
entrusted the duty to ameliorate the conditions of labour.
We read Section 1(4) (a), (b) and Proviso and Section 1(5)
(a) and (b) and the Explanation:
“1(4) It applies:
(a) to every establishment in which twenty or more
workmen are employed or were employed on any day
of the preceding twelve months contract labour;
(b) to every contractor who employs or who employ ed
on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty
or more workmen;
156
Provided that the appropriate Government may. after
giving not less than two months’ notice of its intention so
to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the
provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor
employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be
specified in the notification.
(5)(a) It shall not apply to establishments in which
work only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed.
(b) If a question arises whether work performed in an
establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, the
appropriate Government shall decide that question after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be,
a State Board, and its decision shall be final.
Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, work
per formed in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of
an intermittant nature.
(i) if it was performed for more than one hundred and
twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or
(ii) if it is of a seasonal character and is performed
for more than sixty days in a year.”
Section 1(4) deals with the application of the Act to
establishments and contractors answering to the description
given therein. It was not disputed before us that the
establishment in question and the contractors it employs
come within the ambit of the provisions of this Act.
However, an investigation is necessary to collect factual
details to ascertain whether the Corporation comes within
the exemption indicated in clause 1(5) quoted above.
8. Section 3 speaks of a Central Advisory Board to
advise
the Central Government on matters arising out of the
administration of the Act and Section 4 speaks similarly of
State Advisory Boards. Section 5 confers on the Central
Board or the State Boards as the case may be the power to
constitute committees for the proper implementation of the
provisions of the Act. Section 7 requires registration of
establishments to which the Act applies. On such
registration, the principal employer will get a certificate
of
157
registration containing the necessary particulars. Chapter
IV deals with the licence of a contractor and Chapter V.
with the welfare and health of the contract labour. Chapter
VI deals with penalties and procedure.
9. The petitioners case is that though the Act came
into force on 10-2-1971 no contractor has complied with the
provisions of the Act and each of them has by infringement
of the provisions of the Act rendered themselves liable to
be prosecuted. Since the contractors have not got themselves
licenced, the labourers find it difficult to invoke the
relevant provisions of the Rules to secure the benefits to
them under the Act.
10. Now the question as to which is the appropriate
Government for the implementation of the provisions of the
provisions of the Act can be considered.A decision on this
question is necessary before any direction can be issued in
this writ petition. The State Governments, except those of
State of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, have not filed their
counter affidavits. In the writ petition the petitioners
have indicated that the Central and the State Governments
have taken up conflicting stand on this question.
11. ‘Appropriate Government’ is defined in Section
2(1) (a) of the Act to read as under:
“2(1) (a) “Appropriate Government means,:
(1) in relation to-
(1) any establishment pertaining to any industry
carried on by or under the authority of the
Central Government, or pertaining to any such
controlled industry as may be specified in
this behalf by the Central Government, or
(ii) any establishment of any railway Cantonment
Board, major port, mine or oil field, or
(iii)any establishment of a banking or insurance
company,
(2) the Central Government,
158
in relation to any other establishment the
Government of the State in which that other
establishment is situated.”
A bare reading will show that sub-cls. (ii) and (iii)
of sec. 2(1) (a) are not attracted in this case. The
question then is whether various establishments of the
Corporation spread all over the country could be said to be
establishments pertaining to any industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central Government or pertaining
to any such controlled industry as may be specified in this
behalf by the Central Government. Before we determine the
width and ambit of sub-cl. (i) of sub-sec. (I) of sec. 2 (1)
(a), it would be advantageous to refer to the definition of
‘establishment’ set out in sec. 2 (I)(e). It reads as under:
“2(1) (e)- Establishment means-
(i) any office or department of the Government or
a local authority, or
(ii) any place wher
e any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation
is carried on.
” We would be concerned with sub-cl (ii) of Sec. 2 (1)
(e) which provides that the establishment would be an
establishment where any industry, trade, business,
manufacture or occupation is carried on. Thus various
warehouses, godowns and place alike set up by the
Corporation would be establishments where the trade of the
Corporation is being carried on. Could these establishments
be said to be pertaining to an industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central Government ? Before we
find out correct meaning of the expression ‘any industry
carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government’, it is necessary to draw attention to the
definition of appropriate Government’ as set out in Section
2(a) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which
provides that ‘appropriate Government’ means: (i) in
relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry
carried on by or under the authority of Central Government
(omitting the words not necessary for the present purpose.
Or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Food
Corporation Or India established under section 3. Or a Board
of Management established for two or more
159
contiguous States under Section 16 of the Food Corporation
Act, 1964. .., the Central Government. Obviously, therefore,
for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
relation to any industrial dispute concerning the Food
Corporation of India, the Central Government is the
appropriate Government, There is an express reference to the
Food Corporation of India. If the Food Corporation of India
was an establishment in an industry carried on by or under
the authority of the Central Government, it would be
tautologous to specifically refer it and include it. It is a
well established canon of statutory construction that
legislature is known to avoid tautology and redundancy. If
Food Corporation of India was an industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central Government, it would have
been comprehended in the first part of sub-section (1) but
that being not the position, it was specifically referred to
by name. Having examined this definition, it is necessary to
bring to fore the contra-distinction between the definition
of the expression ‘appropriate Government’ in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the definition in the Act under
examination. It may be pointed out that the expression in
the Act does not include by name the Food Corporation of
India as the one in respect of which the appropriate
Government would be the Central Government, while it is
mentioned so in the definition in the Industrial Disputes
Act even though both the statutes use the general expression
‘any industry carried on by or under the authority of the
Central Government.
12. Having noticed this contra-distinction, let us
examine the width and content of the expression ‘any
industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government’. The matter is no more resintegra. In Heavy
Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors.(1)
this Court held that the expression ‘any industry carried on
by or under the authority of the Central Government’ as used
in the definition of expression ‘appropriate Government’ in
Section 2(a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would
mean ‘pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a
servant acts under or pursuant to the authority of his
principal or master.’ This Court took notice of the fact
that the entire share capital of the Heavy Engineering
Corporation Ltd, was contributed by the Central Government
and extensive powers were conferred on it and
(1) [1969]- 3 SCR 995
160
yet the Corporation was none other than a company and could
not be said to be an industry carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government. Therefore, the case
would be covered by the residuary clause and the appropriate
Government was held to be the State Government and the
reference under Section 10 made by the State of Bihar was
held valid and competent. Looking to the placement of the
expression in the definition clause of the Act and the
purpose for which it is enacted, the expression ‘any
industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government’ must receive the same interpretation as was done
in the aforementioned case. In a recent decision of this
Court in Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur v. The Model
Mills, Nagpur and Anr.,(l) to which both of us were parties,
while interpreting more or less an identical expression
occurring in Section 32(IV) of the Bonus Act, 1965, this
Court held that in relation to an undertaking in textile
industry in respect of which an authorised controller was
appointed under the provisions of the Industrial
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the appropriate
Government was the State Government and not the Central
Government observing that even where an authorised
controller is appointed by the Central Government. it merely
substitutes Board of Director of a company managing the
industrial undertaking by an authorised controller appointed
by the Central Government, but the undertaking none-the-less
remains an under taking managed under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, and it could not be said to be an
undertaking in any industry carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government. The same approach holds
good for the purpose of construction of the expression ‘any
industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government’ under the Act. Let it be made clear that it was
not suggested that the various establishments of the
Corporation pertain to any controlled industry. ‘therefore,
sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2(a) of the Act
is not attracted and therefore, the case would be governed
by the residuary provision in sub-section (2) and the State
Government would be the appropriate Government.
13. The question as to which is the ‘appropriate
Government has been briefly dealt with in the counter-
affidavits filed by the Corporation, State of Madhya Pradesh
and the State of Punjab. In the counter-affidavit filed by
the Corporation, it is stated that this
(1) AIR 1984 SC 1813
161
question was examined by the Labour Ministry and that the
said Ministry had clarified that the respective State
Governments are the ‘appropriate Governments’ for the
Corporation’s establishments situated in the States. The
Union of India, the second respondent, in its counter-
affidavit has also taken the stand that the ‘appropriate
Government’ for the purpose of the Zonal establishments
situated in the respective States is the State Government
and not the Central Government.
The State of Punjab and the State of Madhya Pradesh
have also stated in their respective counter-affidavits that
the ‘appropriate Government’ for the purpose of the Act for
the regional offices of the Corporation in their respective
States is the State Government. These pleadings are
indicative of the fact that the State Governments understood
them to be the ‘appropriate Government’ for the Zonal
offices in their respective State.
On the interpretation of the relevant Sections
extracted above, we hold that the ‘appropriate Government’
for the purpose of this case pertaining to the regional
offices and the warehouses in the respective States is the
State Government and not the Central Government.
14. However, we are of the opinion that it may not be
possible or proper for us to grant the reliefs prayed for by
the petitioner in full on the materials on record. The
materials are scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive
adjudication of the claims of the petitioners and to grant
them reliefs as prayed for. The Act contains provisions
enabling the ‘appropriate Government’ to get reports as to
how to implement the provisions of the Act. The machinery
provided for by the Act has not been brought into action in
any State except the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under these
circumstances. the only course open to us is to issue
appropriate direction to the State Governments to constitute
committees under Section 5 of the Act, to make necessary
enquiries, and to submit a report as to whether it would be
possible to abolish contract labour in the Corporation
altogether In so doing, we will have to exclude the State of
Madhya Pradesh because the counter-affidavit filed by that
State shows that necessary action is being taken under the
Act. Accordingly a writ of mandamus will be issued to all
the State Governments except the State of Madhya Pradesh for
appointing a committee under Section 5 of the Act within
three months from
162
today to enquire whether contract labour in the Corporation
should be abolished. The committee shall submit a report
within four months of its constitution and the Government is
directed to take action on such report within two months
thereafter. The necessary expenses for the committees will
be borne by the Corporation. Since the Madhya Pradesh
Government has already constituted committees under Section
5, the said State is directed to ask the committees so
appointed to make its report expeditiously and to take
appropriate action on the report as indicated above. The
Corporation will be at liberty to place materials before the
committees whether it comes within the exemption clause. The
writ petition is allowed as indicated above with costs to
the petitioner quantified at Rs. 2,000 pay able by the
Corporation.
S.R. Petition allowed.
163