{"id":110836,"date":"1974-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974"},"modified":"2017-08-31T17:24:56","modified_gmt":"2017-08-31T11:54:56","slug":"gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","title":{"rendered":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 960, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 665<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Reddy, P. Jaganmohan, Dwivedi, S.N., Goswami, P.K., Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGAMMON INDIA LTD.  ETC.\t ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.  ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/03\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  960\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 665\n 1974 SCC  (1) 598\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1977 SC 747\t (7)\n RF\t    1992 SC 457\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nContract    Labour   (Regulation   and\t  Abolition)\tAct.\n1970--Constitutional  validity\tof,--Scope  and\t application\nof--Validity of the Rules made under the Act.\nInterpretation of statutes-ejusdem generis.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)\t Act,  1970,\nrequires  contractors  to take out licenses.  The  Act\talso\nimposes certain duties and liabilities on the contractor, in\nrespect\t of  the workmen employed by the  contractors.\t The\nContractor is defined as a person who undertakes to  produce\na given result for the establishment through contract labour\nor  who\t supplied  contract  labour  for  any  work  of\t the\nestablishment\tand  includes  a  sub-contractor.   It\t was\ncontended  that the application of the Act is in respect  of\npending\t  work\tof  construction  amounts  to\tunreasonable\nrestriction  on\t the  right  of\t the  contractors  violating\narticle\t 19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution.   It\twas  further\ncontented   that  the  fees  prescribed\t for   registration,\nlicences,  or renewal of licences amount to a tax  and\tare,\ntherefore, beyond the rule-making powers of the Central\t and\nState  Government.   It\t was  further  contended  that\t the\nprovisions of the Act are unconstitutional and\tunreasonable\nbecause\t of impracticability of implementation.\t  Provisions\nin  regard to canteens, rest rooms, latrines and urinals  as\ncontemplated  by  sections 16 and 17 of the Act\t read  with.\nCentral Rules 40 to 56 and rule 25(2) (vi) are incapable  of\nimplementation\tand  enormously expensive as  to  amount  to\nunreasonable  restrictions  within the\tmeaning\t of  Article\n19(1)(g).    The   provisions  contain\t in   Central\tRule\n25(2)(v)(b)  were  challenged  as  unreasonable.   Rule\t  25\n(2)(v)(a)  provides  that  wages  and  other  conditions  of\nservice\t of workmen who do same or similar kind of  work  as\nthe  workmen employed directly in the  principal  employer's\nestablishment shall be the same.  In case of disagreement it\nis  provided  that the same shall be decided  by  the  Chief\nLabour\t Commissioner\twhose  decision\t shall\t be   final.\nRule25(2)(b)states  that  in  other  cases  the\t wage  rates\nholidays  and  conditions of service of the workmen  of\t the\ncontractor  would be such as may be specified by  the  Chief\nLabour Commissioner.  There is no provision for appeal.\nIt was also contended that the provisions in section 14 with\nregard to forfeiture of security are unconstitutional.\t The\nvalidity  of rule 24 which requires deposit of Rs. 30\/-\t per\nworkmen is challenged as void under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f)\nboth  on  the  ground that the same is\tarbitrary  and\talso\nbecause\t there is no obligation on the Government to pay  to\nthe  workmen or to utilise for the workmen any part  of\t the\nsecurity  deposit so forfeited.\t It was also contended\tthat\nsection 34 of the Act which empowers the Central  Government\nto  make any provision not inconsistent with the  provisions\nof the Act for removal of difficulty is unconstitutional  on\nthe   ground  of  excessive  delegation.    The\t  intervener\nchallenged  section  28 of the Act conferring power  on\t the\nGovernment to appoint Inspectors as conferring arbitrary and\nunguided power.\nIt  was\t also  contended  that\tthe  petitioners  were\t not\ncontractors within the meaning of the Act since the work  of\nthe petitioner is not any part of the work of the  principal\nemployer  nor was the work normally done in the premises  of\nthe establishment of the principal employer.\nHELD : (1) The contention that the application of the Act to\nthe  pending  work of construction amounts  to\tunreasonable\nrestriction  was negatived on the ground that the  bill\t was\nintroduced  in 1967 and it was passed in 1970.\tThe  subject\nmatter\tof the legislation is not contract; it\tis  contract\nlabour.\t There is no unreasonableness in its application  to\npending\t contracts.   The  pendency of\tcontract  is  not  a\nrelevant   consideration.    There   is\t  no   retrospective\noperation.  There is no material to show that the petitioner\nwould  suffer.\tThe contractors have not shown the  contract\nto show the rates of work. It  is also not known  whether\nthe  petitioners  have clauses in the contract\tto  ask\t for\nincrease of rates in changed circumstances. [671F]\n(2) The fees prescribedfor   registration,  licences   and\nrenewal\t of licenses do not amount to a levy of taxes.\t The\nGovernment  gives  service  in regard to  the  licences\t and\nregistration. [671H]\n666\n(3)  There is no arbitrary power or excessive delegation  of\nlegislative  authority in regard to-grant of licences.\t The\nAct  and the Rules provide ample guidelines as to the  grant\nand the terms and conditions of licence.  Section 15 of\t the\nAct confers a right of appeal on any person who is aggrieved\nby any order refusing a licence or if there is a  revocation\nor suspension of a licence. [672A-B]\n(4) The conditions of contract labour has been engaging\t the\nattention  of  various\tCommittees for\ta  long\t time.\t The\nbenefits  conferred  by\t the Act and the  Rules\t are  social\nlegislative  measures.\t The  various  measures\t which\t are\nchallenged  as\tunreasonable,  namely,\tthe  provisions\t for\ncanteens,  rest\t rooms, facilities for\tsupply\tof  drinking\nwater, latrines, urinals, first aid facilities are amenities\nfor  the  dignity of human labour.  The measure\t is  in\t the\ninterest  of  the  public.  There  is  a  rational  relation\nbetween\t the impugned Act and the object to be-achieved\t and\nthe  provisions\t are  not in excess  of\t that  object.\t The\nclassification\tis not arbitrary.  There is no violation  of\nArticle\t 14.  It is an unproved allegation as to whether  it\nis  impracticable to provide a canteen.\t On the face  of  it\nthere  is no impossibility.  Possibility is presumed  unless\nimpossibility\tis  proved.   It  is  not  an\tunreasonable\nprovision  to  require\ta rest room, if\t the  labourers\t are\nrequired  to  halt at night at the place of  work.  [672D-E;\n673A]\n(5) Rule 25(2)(v)(b) contains an explanation which lays down\nthat  while determining the wages and conditions of  service\nthe Chief Labour Commissioner shall have regard to wages and\nconditions  of\tservice\t in similar  employments.   This  is\nreasonable.   It  will be question from statute\t to  statute\nfrom  fact to fact as to whether absence of a provision\t for\nappeal\tmakes the statute bad.\tThe Commissioner  of  Labour\nhas special knowledge.\tIt is not difficult to determine and\ndecide\tthe questions under rule 25(2)(v)(b).  Absence of  a\nprovision  for appeal is not unreasonable in the context  of\nthe   provisions  in  this  statute.   The  provisions\t for\nforfeiture  of security without provisions for spending\t the\namount\t on  workers  is  constitutionally   valid   because\nforfeiture amounts to departmental penalty.  The rate of Rs.\n30\/-  per  workman  does not offend  Article  14.   Further,\norders\tfor forfeiture are appealable and forfeiture  itself\nis after giving the party reasonable opportunity of  showing\ncause against the action proposed. [674A-C; 676A]\n(6)  Section  34  of the Act does not  amount  to  excessive\ndelegation.[676G]\n(7)  The  Act  was passed to  prevent  the  exploitation  of\ncontract  labour and also to introduce better conditions  of\nwork.\tThe  underlying\t policy of the\tAct  is\t to  abolish\ncontract labour wherever possible and practicable and  where\nit  cannot be abolished altogether the policy of the Act  is\nthat the working conditions of the contract labour should be\nso regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provision  of\nessential  amenities.\tSection\t 10 of the  Act\t deals\twith\nabolition  while the rest of the Act deals mainly  with\t the\nregulation. [669G-A]\nSince  the  validity  of section 28  was  challenged  by  an\nIntervener  and not by the petitioners, the  intervener\t was\nnot permitted to challenge since an intervener cannot  raise\npoints\twhich  are not canvassed by the Petitioners  in\t the\npleadings. [677A]\n(8)  The  contention of the petitioners that  they  are\t not\ncontractors  within  the  meaning of  the  Act\tis  unsound.\nEstablishment is understood as including the work site.\t The\nconstruction  work  which the contractor undertakes  is\t the\nwork of the establishment. [669F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 202\/413\/71,\t 92,
\n320,  330, 375, 391, 509 & 626-627\/72 and  114,\t 315-316\/73,
\nand 1906 or 1973.\n<\/p>\n
(Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\nMr.   G. L. Sanghi and Mr. L N. Shroff for  the\t Petitioners
\n(In W.P. Nos. 413\/71 509\/72) & Intervener No. 2:
\nMr.   Soli Sorabjee.  Mr. V. M. Tarkundde (In 202\/73, Mr.  K
\nS.  Ramamurthi (In 375\/72), M\/s.  D. R. Thadani (In  375\/72)
\nand G. L. Sanghi (in 320\/72 & 330\/72), with M\/s C. M.  Mehta
\nand  B.\t R. Agarwala, (Mr.  C. M. Mehta did  not  appear  in
\n375\/72)\t for the petitioners (in WPs.  Nos. 320,  330,\t375,
\n391 of 1972 and WP No. 202\/73).<\/span>
\nM\/s  S.\t K. Mehta, M. Qamaruddin, K. R.\t Nagraja  and  Vinot
\nDhawan for the Petitioners; (In W. Ps.\tNos. 626-27\/72.\n<\/p>\n
667<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.  Vineet Kumar with M\/s.  G. L. Sanghi and S. N.  Trivedi
\n(from 21-2-1974) for the Petitioners (in W. P. No. 114\/73)
\nMr.   S.  N. Singh for the Petitioners (In W. P.  Nos.\t313-
\n316\/73)
\nMr.  J. D. Jain, for the Petitioners (In W. P. No. 1906\/73)
\nM\/s D. K. Singha and K. R. Nambiar, for the Petitioners\t (In
\nW. P. No. 92\/71) Dr.  L. M. Singhvi with Mr. S. M. Jain\t for
\nthe Respondent No. I (in W. P. No-. 413\/71)
\nMr.   L.  N.  Sinha, Mr. M. C. Bhandare (for  the  State  of
\nMaharashtra in 320 & 330\/73), Mr. K. L. Hathi (for the State
\nof  Gujarat in WP No. 202\/71) with M\/s.\t R. N. Sachthey\t and
\nM.  N. Shroff for Respondent No. 2 (In W. P. No.  413\/71)  &
\nRespdt.\t No. I (In W. P. No. 509\/72)\tand  (In W.  P.\t No.
\n626-627\/72 Respdts.  Nos. 1-2 (In W. P. 202\/ 72)  WP.\t No.
\n1906 73, AND 92\/71):\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  G.B. Pai with Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Miss Kamlesh  Bansal,
\nand  Mrs’  Shobhna Kikshit for Respdt.\tNo. 3 (in W.  P.  No
\n320\/72): Mr. R. Ram Reddy with Mr. P. P. Rao for the Respdt.
\nNo.  5\t(In W. P. No. 202\/71).\tMr. S. M. Jain\tfor  Respdt.
\nNo. 3 (In W. P. 202\/71) Mr.  R. C. Prasad for Respdt.  No. 8
\n(In  W. P. 202\/71) Mr. A. V. Rangam and Miss  A.  Subhashini
\nfor the Respdt.\t No. 7 (In W. P. 202\/71)
\nM\/s Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for the  Respdt.
\nNo. 6 (in W. P. No. 202\/71):\n<\/p>\n
Mr.   M.  N. Shroff for the Respdt.  No. 10 (In\t W.  P.\t No.
\n202\/71):\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  L N. Shroff for the Respdt.  I I (In W. P. No. 202\/71):
\nMr.  Veerappa for the Respdt. 12 (In W. P. No. 202\/71)
\nM\/s G. Dass and B. Parthasarthi for the Respdt. 13 (in W. P.
\nNo. 2,02\/71)
\nMr.P. Ram Reddy with P. P. Rao for the\tApplicant\/Intervener
\n,,(The State of Andhra Pradesh in W. P. 413\/71)
\nM\/s.  Sharad Manohar, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi\t for
\nintervener No. 1 (K.  C. Agarwala)
\nMr.  B. R. Agarwala for Intervener Nos. 3 & 4 (Gammon and
\nY.   V. Narayanan. )
\nMr. N. N. Keshwani for intervener No. 5 (Gujarat  Contractor
\nAssn.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY,  C.  J.  These  petitions\tunder  Article\t32  of\t the
\nConstitution  challenge the validity of the Contract  Labour
\n(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 referred to as the\t Act
\nand  of\t the  Contract\tLabour\t(Regulation  and  Abolition)
\nCentral\t Rules\tand  Rules of the States  of  Rajasthan\t and
\nMaharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners  carry on the business of  contractors\t for
\nconstruction of roads, buildings, weigh bridges and dams.
\nThe Act requires contractors to take out licences.  The\t Act
\nalso   imposes\tcertain\t duties\t and  liabilities   on\t the
\ncontractors.\n<\/p>\n
The Act defines in section 2 (c) a “contractor” in  relation
\nto  an\testablishment  to mean a person\t who  undertakes  to
\nproduce a given
\n668<\/span>
\nresult\tfor the establishment, other than a mere  supply  of
\ngoods  or  articles of manufacture  to\tsuch  establishment,
\nthrough contract labour or who supplies contract labour\t for
\nany work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
\nThe   other  definitions  relevant  to\tthe  meaning  of   a
\ncontractor   are  establishment,  principal   employer\t and
\nworkmen.\n<\/p>\n
“Establishment” as defined in section 2 (e) of the Act means\n<\/p>\n
(i)  any office or department of the Government or  a  local
\nauthority,  or\t(ii) any place where  any  industry,  trade,
\nbusiness, manufacture or occupation is carried on.
\n“Principal employer” as defined in section 2 (g) of the\t Act
\nmeans  (i)  in relation to any office or department  of\t the
\nGovernment or a local authority, the head of that office  or
\ndepartment  or such other officer as the Government  or\t the
\nlocal  authority,  as the case may be, may specify  in\tthis
\nbehalf,\t (ii)  in a factory, the owner or  occupier  of\t the
\nfactory and where a person has been named as the manager  of
\nthe  factory  under the Factories Act, 1948, the  person  so
\nnamed,\t(iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine\t and
\nwhere  a person has been named as the manager of  the  mine,
\nthe  person so named, and (iv) in any  other  establishment,
\nany  person responsible for the supervision and\t control  of
\nthe establishment.\n<\/p>\n
“Workman” is defined in section 2 (i) of the Act to mean any
\nperson\temployed  in or in connection with the work  of\t any
\nestablishment  to do any skilled, semi-skilled or  unskilled
\nmanual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire  or
\nreward,\t whether  the  terms of employment  be\texpress\t or-
\nimplied.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2  (b) of the Act states that a  workman  shall  be
\ndeemed\tto  be\temployed  as  “contract\t labour”  in  or  in
\nconnection  with  the work of an establishment, when  he  is
\nhired  in  or in connection with such work by or  through  a
\ncontractor,  with or without the knowledge of the  principal
\nemployer.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners  contend  that they  are  not\tcontractors-
\nwithin the definition of the Act.  They advance two reasons.
\nFirst,\tthe work of the petitioners is not any part  of\t the
\nwork  of  the  principal employer nor is  it  the  work\t “in
\nconnection  with  the work of  the  establishment”,  namely,
\nprincipal employer.  Second, the work of the petitioners  is
\nnormally not done in the premises of the “establishment”  of
\nthe principal employer.\n<\/p>\n
Relying\t on  the definitions. counsel  for  the\t petitioners
\ncontended  that\t establishment\tmeans any  place  where\t any
\nindustry,  trade,  business, manufacture  or  occupation  is
\ncarried\t on  and,  therefore, the workmen  employed  by\t the
\npetitioners  are  not contract labour because they  are\t not
\nemployed  in connection with the work of the  establishment.
\nThe   work  of\tthe  establishment  is,\t according  to\t the
\npetitioners,  not  only\t at the place  where  the  business,
\ntrade, industry of the establishment is carried on but\talso
\nthe   actual   business\t or  trade  or\t industry   of\t the
\nestablishment.\t The  entire  emphasis\tis  placed  by\t the
\npetitioners  on the words “work ‘of any\t establishment.”  By
\nway  of\t illustration it is said that if a  banking  company
\nwhich is an establish-\n<\/p>\n
669<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  which  carries on its business at\t Delhi\temploys\t the
\npetitioners  to\t construct  a  building\t at  Allahabad\t the
\nbuilding to be constructed is not the work of the bank.\t  It
\nis  said that the only work of the bank as an  establishment
\nis banking work and, therefore, the work of construction  is
\nnot  the banking work of the establishment.  Therefore,\t the
\npetitioners  contend  that  the\t workmen  employed  by\t the
\npetitioners  are not workmen in connection with the work  of
\nthe establishment.\n<\/p>\n
The  contention\t of the petitioners is\tunsound.   When\t the
\nbanking\t company  employs  the petitioners  to\tconstruct  a
\nbuilding   the\t petitioners   are  in\t relation   to\t the
\nestablishment  contractors who undertake to produce a  given
\nresult\tfor the bank.  The petitioners are also persons\t who
\nundertake  to  produce the result through  contract  labour.
\nThe petitioners may appoint sub-contractors to do the  work.
\nTo   accede   to  the  petitioners’  contention\t  that\t the
\nconstruction  work  which Is away from the place  where\t the
\nindustry, trade, business of the establishment is carried on
\nis not the work of the establishment is to render the  words
\n“work of any establishments devoid of ordinary meaning.\t The
\nconstruction  of the building is the work of the  establish-
\nment.\tThe building is the property of\t the  establishment.
\nTherefore,  the\t construction  work  is\t the  work  of\t the
\nestablishment.\t That  is  why a workman  is  deemed  to  be
\nemployed  as contract labour in connection with the work  of
\nan  establishment.   The  place where business\tor  rade  or
\nindustry  or manufacture or occupation is carried on is\t not
\nSynonymous  with  “the, work of the  establishment”  when  a
\ncontractor  employs contract labour in connection  with\t the
\nwork  of  the establishment.  The error of  the\t petitioners
\nlies  in  equating the work of the  establishment  with\t the
\nactual\tplace  where  the business,  industry  or  trade  is
\ncarried on and the actual work of the business, industry  or
\ntrade.\n<\/p>\n
It  is plain that industry, trade, business, manufacture  or
\noccupation  is to expand.  In connection with the  expansion
\nof  establishment,  buildings  are  constructed.   The\tsite
\nchosen\t for   the  building  is  the  work  site   of\t the
\nestablishment.\t The  work  site  is  the  place  where\t  on
\ncompletion   of\t  construction,\t  the\tbusiness   of\t the
\nestablishment  will be carried on.  Therefore, the  work  at
\nthe  site as understood in the definition is the work of  an
\nestablishment-.\t  Establishment is understood  as  including
\nthe  work site.\t The construction work which the  contractor
\nundertakes is the work of the establishment.
\nThe  Act was passed to prevent the exploitation of  contract
\nlabour and also to introduce better conditions of work.\t The
\nAct  provides  for  regulation\tand  abolition\tof  contract
\nlabour.\t  The  underlying policy of the Act  is\t to  abolish
\ncontract  labour,  wherever possible  and  practicable.\t and
\nwhere  it cannot be abolished altogether, the policy of\t the
\nAct  is that the working conditions of the  contract  labour
\nshould\tbe  so regulated as to ensure payment of  wages\t and
\nprovision  of  essential amenities’.  That is  why  the\t Act
\nprovides  for regulated conditions of work and\tcontemplates
\nprogressive abolition to the extent contemplated by  section
\n10  of the Act.\t Section 10 of the Act deals with  abolition
\nwhile the rest of the Act deals mainly with regulation.\t The
\ndominant  idea of the section 10 of the Act is to  find\t out
\nwhether
\n670<\/span>
\ncontract  labour  is  necessary\t for  the  industry,  trade,
\nbusiness,  manufacture or occupation which is carried on  in
\nthe establishment.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act in section 10 empowers the Government\tto  prohibit
\nemployment  of\tcontract labour in any\testablishment.\t The
\nGovernment  under  that\t section has to apply  its  mind  to
\nvarious\t  factors   before  the\t Government   prohibits\t  by
\nnotification in the official gazette, employment of contract
\nlabour\tin  any\t process, operation or\tother  work  in\t any
\nestablishment.\tThe words “other work in any  establishment”
\nin section 10 of the Act are important.\t The work in the es-
\ntablishment will be apparent from section 10 (2) of the\t Act
\nas incidental or necessary to the industry, trade, business,
\nmanufacture  or\t occupation  that  is  carried\ton  in\t the
\nestablishment.\tThe Government before notifying\t prohibition
\nof  contract  labour  for work which is carried\t on  in\t the
\nestablishment  will  consider  whether\tthe  work  is  of  a
\nPerennial  nature  in  that establishment or  work  is\tdone
\nordinarily,  through regular workmen in that  establishment.
\nThe  words  “work of an establishment ” which  are  used  in
\ndefining  workmen  as  contract\t labour\t being\temployed  in
\nconnection  with the work of an establishment indicate\tthat
\nthe work of the establishment there is not the same as\twork
\nin the establishment contemplated in section 10 of the Act.
\nThe  words “other work in any establishment” in\t section  10
\nare  to\t be, construed as ejusdom generis.   The  expression
\n“other\twork” in the collection of words process,  operation
\nor other work in any, establishment occurring in section  10
\nhas  not the same meaning as the expression  “in  connection
\nwith  the work of an establishment”, spoken in\trelation  to
\nworkmen or contractor.\n<\/p>\n
A  contractor under the Act in relation to an  establishment
\nis a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the
\nestablishment  through contract labour.\t A contractor  is  a
\nperson\twho  supplies contract labour for any  work  of\t the
\nestablishment. The entire context shows that the work of the
\nestablishment  is  the\twork  site,  The  work\tsite  is  an
\nestablishment and belongs to the principal employer who\t has
\na right of supervision and control., who is the owner of the
\npremises  and  the end product and from\t whom  the  contract
\nlabour\treceives  its payment either directly or  through  a
\ncontractor  It is the place where the establishment  intends
\nto  carry  on its business,  trade,  industry,\tmanufacture,
\noccupation after the construction is complete.
\nAccording  to the petitioners, the contract labour  employed
\nby  their sub-contractors will be within the  provisions  of
\nthe Act but when the petitioners will be engaged by a trade,
\nor  industry, the petitioners will not be a  contractor\t and
\nthe workmen directly emPloyed by the petitioners will not be
\ncontract   labour.   This  is  a  strange,   and   anomalous
\nsubmission.  The Act must be construed as a whole.  The\t Act
\nmust apply to contract labour in connection with the work of
\nan  establishment when the contract labour is hired  by\t the
\ncontractor or by the sub-contractor of the contractor.\n<\/p>\n
671<\/span><\/p>\n
The  expression\t “work of an establishment” means  the\twork
\nsite  where  the construction work of the  establishment  is
\ncarried on by the petitioners by employing contract  labour.
\nEvery clause of a statute is to be construed with  reference
\nto  the\t context and other provisions of the Act to  make  a
\nconsistent and harmonious meaning of the statute relating to
\nthe subject matter.  The interpretation of the words will be
\nby looking at the context, the collocation of the words\t and
\nthe  object  ‘of  the words relating to\t the  matters.\t The
\n‘words are not to be viewed detached from the context of the
\nstatute.   The\twords are to be viewed in  relation  to\t the
\nwhole  context.\t  The  definition  of  contractor,  workman,
\ncontract  labour,  establishment,  principal  employer\t all
\nindicate  that the work of an establishment means  the\twork
\nsite  of the establishment where a building  is\t constructed
\nfor the establishment.\tThe construction is the work of\t the
\nestablishment.\tThe expression “employed in or in connection
\nwith  the work of the establishment” does not mean that\t the
\noperation  assigned  to\t the  workmen  must  be\t a  part  or
\nincidental to the work performed by the principal employer..
\nThe  contractor is employed to produce the given result\t for
\nthe  benefit of the principal employer in fulfilment of\t the
\nundertaking given to him by the contractor.  Therefore,\t the
\nemployment  of the contract labour, namely, the\t workmen  by
\nthe  contractor\t is  in\t connection with  the  work  of\t the
\nestablishment.\t The petitioners are contractors within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  the  Act.\t The  work  which  the\t petitioners
\nundertake is the work of the establishment.
\nThe  second contention on behalf of the petitioners is\tthat
\nthe provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder\t are
\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tsaid that the application of the Act in\t respect  of
\npending\t  work\tof  construction  amounts  to\tunreasonable
\nrestriction on the right of the contractors under Article 19
\n(1) (g).  The bill was introduced in 1967.  It was passed in
\n1970,  There  is no unreasonableness in that it\t applies  to
\npending\t contracts.  The pendency of cont is not a  relevant
\nconsideration.\tThe subject-matter of the legislation is not
\ncontract. it is contract labour.  There is no  retrospective
\noperation.   There  are\t no  materials\tto  show  that\t the
\npetitioners will suffer.  The contractors have not shown the
\ncontracts  to show the rates of work.  It is also not  known
\nwhether the petitioners have clauses in the contract to\t ask
\nfor  increase  of rates in changed circumstances.   That  is
\nusual  in contracts.  The petitioners during the years\t1967
\nto 1970 knew that the legislative measure was going to\tfind
\nplace  in the statute book.  The crucial point is  that\t the
\ninterests of the workmen are remedied by the objects of\t the
\nAct.  Those interests are minimum labour welfare.  There  is
\nno unreasonableness in the measure.\n<\/p>\n
The fees prescribed for registration, licence or renewal  of
\nlicences  are  said  to amount to a tax\t and  are  therefore
\nbeyond\tthe  rule-making  powers of the\t Central  and  State
\nGovernments.  The fees prescribed for registration,  licence
\nand renewal of licences do not amount to a levy of tax.\t The
\nGovernment has to bear expenses for the scheme
\n672<\/span>
\nof  registration, licence.  The Government gives service  in
\nregard\tto licences and registration.  Further there  is  no
\narbitrary  power  or  excessive\t delegation  of\t legislative
\nauthority  in regard to grant of licence.  The Act  and\t the
\nRules provide ample guideline as to the grant and terms\t and
\nconditions  of\tlicence.  Section 15 of the  Act  confers  a
\nright of appeal on any person who is aggrieved by any  order
\nrefusing  a licence or if there is revocation or  suspension
\nof   licence.\tSimilarly,  when  there\t is  revocation\t  of
\nregistration  of  an establishment or there  is\t refusal  to
\ngrant registration there is a right of appeal.
\nCounsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of
\nthe  Act  are unconstitutional and unreasonable\t because  of
\nimpracticability of implementation.  Provisions in regard to
\ncanteens, rest rooms,. latrines and urinals as\tcontemplated
\nin sections 16 and 17 of the Act read with Central Rules  40
\nto  56\tand  Rule 25 (2) (vi) are said to  be  incapable  of
\nimplementation\tand  also to be enormously expensive  as  to
\namount\tto  unreasonable restrictions under Article  19\t (1)\n<\/p>\n
(g).   No provision of the Act is impeached on that  ground.
\nThe attack is only with regard to rules.\n<\/p>\n
The  condition\tof  contract labour has\t been  engaging\t the
\nattention  of  various\tcommittees for\ta  long\t time.\t The
\nbenefits  conferred  by\t the Act and the  Rules\t are  social
\nwelfare\t legislative measures.\tThe various  measures  which
\nare  challenged as unreasonable namely, the  provisions\t for
\ncanteens,  rest\t rooms, facilities for\tsupply\tof  drinking
\nwater,\t laterines,  urinals,  first  aid   facilities\t are
\namenities  for the dignity of human labour.  The measure  is
\nin the interest of the public. it is for the legislature  to
\ndetermine  what is needed as the appropriate conditions\t for
\nemployment  of\tcontract labour.  It is\t difficult  for\t the
\nCourt  to impose its own standards of  reasonableness.\t The
\nlegislature  will  be  guided by the needs  of\tthe  general
\npublic\t in   determining   the\t  reasonableness   of\tsuch
\nrequirements.\tThere  is a rational  relation\tbetween\t the
\nimpugned Act and the object to be achieved and the provision
\nis  not in excess of that object.  There is no violation  of
\nArticle\t 14.   The  classification is  not  arbitrary.\t The
\nlegislature has made uniform laws for all contractors.
\nSection\t 16  of the Act confers power on the  Government  to
\nmake  rules  that in every establishment to  which  the\t Act
\napplies\t wherein  contract labour numbering one\t hundred  or
\nmore  are  employed by a contractor, one  or  more  canteens
\nshall  be provided and maintained by the contractor for\t the
\nuse  of such contract labour.  Rule 42 relates\tto  canteens
\nand  Rule 43 relates to dining halls.  Rule 42\tstates\tthat
\nwhere  the  contract labour is likely to  continue  for\t six
\nmonths\tor more and wherein the contract labour numbers\t 100
\nor  more, a canteen shall be provided as mentioned  therein.
\nThis rule indicates that where a fairly stable work goes  on
\nfor  six months and the number of labour is 100 or  more,  a
\ncanteen is to be provided.\n<\/p>\n
It  is said that it is difficult to find space in Bombay  to
\nprovide for canteens.  It is also said that if a road is  to
\nbe constructed, it will be difficult to provide canteen.  It
\nis  said on behalf of the respondents that a provision\tfor-
\ncanteen is capable of performance whether in
\n673<\/span>
\na city orin  a\tdesert.\t  On the face of it,  there  is\t no
\nimpossibility. Possibilityis\t   presumed\t  unless
\nimpossibility is proved. it is an unproved allegationas to
\nwhether\t it is impracticable to provide a canteen. When\t the
\nconstruction  work goes on, the contractor will devise\tways
\nand  means to provide a canteen.  The provision for  canteen
\nis  not\t unreasonable.\tIt is not impracticable\t to  have  a
\ncanteen.  A city like Bombay or the construction of road  is
\nnot an insurmountable feature by itself to hold either\tthat
\nthe provision is unreasonable or impracticable.
\nSection\t 17  of\t the Act states that in\t every\tplace  where
\ncontract  labour is required to halt at night in  connection
\nwith the work of the establishment, there shall be  provided
\na  rest room as mentioned therein.  Rule 41 of\tthe  Central
\nRules  states  that  where  contract  labour  is  likely  to
\ncontinue for three months or more and where contract  labour
\nis required to halt at night, rest rooms shall be  provided.
\nIt is not unreasonable to provide rest room.  The contractor
\nwill  make necessary provision.\t It will be unreasonable  to
\nhold  that a labourer will be required to halt at  night  at
\nthe place of work but he will not have any rest room.
\nSection\t 18 of the Act speaks of facilities like  supply  of
\ndrinking  water,  conveniences\tof  laterines,\turinals\t and
\nwashing\t facilities.  Rule 51 carries out the  provision  of
\nthe  Act by stating that laterines shall be  provided.\t The
\nreasonableness as well as practicability of these facilities
\nis indisputable.\n<\/p>\n
It is said that the provisions contained in Rule 25 (2) (ii)
\nare  unreasonable because the licence states the  number  of
\nworkmen employed and if the contractor is required to employ
\na larger number, the contractor will commit a breach of\t the
\ncondition.  The answer is simple.  The contractor will\ttake
\nsteps  to amend the licence.  Sections 23 and 24 of the\t Act
\nwhich  speak  of contravention of provisions  regarding\t the
\nemployment  of\tcontract labour will be interpreted  in\t the
\nlight  of  section 14 (1) (b) of the Act as to\twhether\t the
\nholder of a licence has, without reasonable cause, failed to
\ncomply\twith  the  condition of the licence.   If  there  is
\nwrongful refusal of amendment, that is appealable under\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The provisions contained in Central Rule 25 (2) (v) (b)\t are
\nchallenged as unreasonable.  Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) states that
\nwages,\tconditions  of\tservice of workmen who\tdo  same  or
\nsimilar kind of work as the workmen directly employed in the
\nprincipal  employer’s establishment shall be the  same.\t  In
\ncase  of  disagreement with regard to type of  work,  it  is
\nprovided that the same shall be decided by the Chief  Labour
\nCommissioner  whose decision shall be final.  Rule  ’25\t (2)\n<\/p>\n
(v)  (b)  states  that\tin other  cases,  the  wages  rates,
\nholidays  and  conditions of service of the workmen  of\t the
\ncontractor  shall be such as may be specified by  the  Chief
\nLabour Commissioner.  There is an explanation to this clause
\nthat while determining wages and conditions of service under
\nRule 25 (2) (v) (b) the Chief Labour Commissioner shall have
\nregard\tto  wages and conditions of service in\tsimilar\t em-
\nployment.  This is reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
674<\/span><\/p>\n
The complaint against Rule 25 (2) (v)(b) is that there is no
\nprovision for appeal.  It is not difficult to determine\t and
\ndecide\tcases of this type.  The Commissioner of Labour\t has
\nspecial\t knowledge.  It will be a question from\t statute  to
\nstatute,  from\tfact  to fact as to  whether  absence  of  a
\nprovision for appeal makes the statute bad.  The  provisions
\ncontained  in Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) refer to wages,  hours  of
\nwork  and  conditions of service in similar  employment.   A
\nprovision for appeal is not inflexible.\t The issue is simple
\nhere.\tA  long drawn procedure may exceed the\tduration  of
\nemployment  of the workmen.  A proper standard is laid\tdown
\nin the explanation to Rule 25 (2) (v) (b).  The absence of a
\nprovision  for appeal is not unreasonable in the context  of
\nprovisions here.  The Commissioner shall have due regard  to
\nthe wages of workmen in similar employment.  The parties are
\nheard  and  the Commissioner of Labour who  is\tspecifically
\nacquainted   with   the\t conditions,  applies\tthe   proper
\nstandards.  There is no unreasonableness in the Rules.
\nThe  petitioners  contended  in the  third  place  that\t the
\nprovisions contained in section 14 of the Act with regard to
\nforfeiture of security are unconstitutional.  Section 12  of
\nthe  Act  provides  that no contractor\tshall  undertake  or
\nexecute\t any  work except in accordance with a\tlicence\t and
\nfurther that licence shall be issued on payment of fees\t and
\non deposit of a security for the due performance of the con-
\nditions\t as  may  be  prescribed.  Section  14\tof  the\t Act
\nprovides  that\tif  a licensing officer is  satisfied  on  a
\nreference  made\t to him or otherwise that the  holder  of  a
\nlicence has, without reasonable cause failed to comply\twith
\nthe conditions subject to which the licence has been granted
\nor has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or\t the
\nRules  made thereunder then without prejudice to  any  other
\npenalty\t to  which the holder of the licence may  be  liable
\nunder  the Act the licensing officer may, after\t giving\t the
\nholder\tof  the licence, an opportunity\t of  showing  cause,
\nrevoke or suspend the licence or forfeit the sum, if any, or
\nany  portion  thereof  deposited as  security  for  the\t due
\nperformance  of the conditions subject to which the  licence
\nhas  been granted.  Rule 24 of the Central Rules relates  to
\nsecurity.   Maharashtra and Rajasthan Rules contain  similar
\nprovisions.  Rule 24 of the Central Rules provides that\t the
\nsecurity amount of Rs. 30\/- for each of the workmen is to be
\ndeposited  as  security\t for  the  due\tperformance  of\t the
\nconditions of licence and compliance with the provisions  of
\nthe Act or the rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the petitioners it is said that Rule 24  which
\nfixes the fee of Rs. 30\/- per workman is void under Articles
\n14 and 19 (1) (f) because it is an arbitrary sum.  Secondly,
\nit is said that there is no obligation on the Government  to
\npay to the workmen or to utilise for the workmen any part of
\nthe security deposit so forfeited.  Thirdly, it is said that
\nthe breach of the conditions of licence or provision of\t the
\nAct  is\t made punishable under the penal provisions  of\t the
\nAct,  viz. section 24 and yet Rule 24 unreasonably  provides
\nfor  the forfeiture of deposit.\t Fourthly, it is  said\tthat
\nany  breach regarding the welfare of the workmen apart\tfrom
\nbeing  penal  is  safeguarded by the  requirement  that\t the
\nprincipal employer would perform the obligation and
\n675<\/span>
\nrecover the amount from the contractor.\t Fifthly, section 20
\nof  the\t Act provides that where the  benefit  for  contract
\nlabour\tis  not provided by the\t contractor,  the  principal
\nemployer  may provide the same and deduct the expenses\tso
\nincurred from  amounts payable to the contractor.  Sixthly,
\nit is said that theprovision   regarding   forfeiture\tof’
\ndeposit has no rational connection between   the    sum
\nrequired to be deposited and the number of workmen nor\tdoes
\nthe  same have rational nexus with the object sought  to  be
\nachieved  since the Government is not bound to\tutilise\t the
\namount\tfor  workmen, concerned.  Finally, it is  said\tthat
\nArticle 14 is violated because it will work harshly  against
\nmedium\tand weaker class of contractors who have to  deposit
\nsubstantial  amounts  before  getting  a  contract  and\t who
\nfurther\t have to go on leaving in deposit with\tthe  Govern-
\nment substantial amounts.  The security is characterised  by
\nthe petitioners as forced loan without interest.
\nThe  relevant  Central\tRules  with  regard  to\t deposit  of
\nsecurity are Rules 24 and 31.  Rule 24 provides for  deposit
\nof security at the rate, of Rs. 30\/- per workmen for the due
\nperformance of the conditions of the licence and  compliance
\nwith the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder.
\nRule  31 states that if the licensing officer is,  satisfied
\nthat  there  is no breach of the conditions  of\t licence  or
\nthere  is  no  order under section 14 of  the  Act  for\t the
\nforfeiture  of\tsecurity or any portion\t thereof,  he  shall
\ndirect\tthe  refund of the security.  If there is  an  order
\ndirecting  the\tforfeiture of any portion  of  the  security
\ndeposit-  the  amount forfeited shall be deducted-  and\t the
\nbalance, if any, refunded.  The forfeiture under section  14
\n(2) of the Act is for failure to comply with the  conditions
\nsubject to which the licence is granted or contravention  of
\nthe provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder.
\nThe forfeiture of deposit under section 14 of the Act may be
\nfor the, entire sum or any portion thereof.  The  forfeiture
\nmay be for the purpose of due performance of the  conditions
\nof the licence or for contravention of any provision of\t the
\nAct  or\t Rules\tmade  thereunder.  If  any  portion  of\t the
\nsecurity  is forfeited, it is in relation to the  extent  of
\ninfraction  or\tthe degree of due performance which  may  be
\nrequired.    The   security  is\t utilisable  for   the\t due
\nperformance  of\t the obligations or which  the\tsecurity  is
\ntaken.\t  The  words  “for  the\t due  performance   of\t the
\nconditions,  subject to which the licence has been  granted”
\nare descriptive of the security.  The conditions of  licence
\nappearing  in  Form No. VI are that the licensee  shall\t not
\ntransfer  the licence and rates of wages shall be  not\tless
\nthan the rates prescribed under the minimum Wages Act.\t The
\nother  conditions  are with regard to hours  of\t work,\twage
\nrates  and  holidays and conditions of service\tas  may\t be-
\nspecified by the Labour Commissioner.  These are some of the
\nprincipal conditions.  The provision for forfeiture  without
\nprovision   for\t  spending   the  amount   on\tworkers\t  is
\nconstitutionally  valid because .the forfeiture\t amounts  to
\ndepartmental  penalty.\t Forfeiture means  not\tmerely\tthat
\nwhich is actually taken from a man by reason of some  breach
\nof condition but includes also that which becomes liable  to
\nbe so taken as a penalty.\n<\/p>\n
676<\/span><\/p>\n
The rate of Rs. 30\/- per workman does not offend Article 14.
\nThe rate is relatable to the classification of big and small
\ncontractors  according to the number employed by  them.\t  No
\nadditional burden is imposed by the rules.
\nFurther\t orders for forfeiture are  appealable.\t  Forfeiture
\nitself\tis after giving the party reasonable opportunity  of
\nshowing\t cause against “the action proposed.   Secondly\t the
\ncondition  of forfeiture is that the failure to comply\twith
\nthe  condition is without reasonable cause.  The  provisions
\nof the Act with regard to forfeiture do not suffer from\t any
\nconstitutional\tinfirmity.  The rules are  not\tinconsistent
\nwith the provisions of the Act.\t The forfeiture of  security
\nis for due performance or as a penalty on the licensee.\t The
\norder  for  forfeiture is an  administrative  penalty.\t The
\nprovisions  contained  in  sections  23 to  26\tof  the\t Act
\nindicate  that\tcontravention of  the  provisions  regarding
\nemployment  of\tcontract labour is  punishable\tin  Criminal
\nCourt.\t The Licensing Officer tinder section 14 of the\t Act
\nis  not\t a Court.  Therefore, there is no aspect  of  double
\njeopardy.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 34 of the Act was challenged  as  unconstitutional.
\nSection 34 of the Act provides that if any difficulty arises
\nin giving effect ‘to the provisions of the Act, the  Central
\nGovernment may, by order, published in the official gazette,
\nmake such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of
\nthe  Act as appears to it to be necessary or  expedient\t for
\nremoving   the\t difficulty.\tReliance   was\t placed\t  by
\n‘petitioners on the decision of this Court in Jalan  Trading
\nCo.  v.\t Mazdoor  Union<\/a>\t reported in  [1967]  1\t S.C.R.\t 15.
\nSection 37 of the Act in that case authorised the Government
\nto  provide by order for ,removal of doubts or\tdifficulties
\nin  giving effect to the provisions of the Act.\t This  Court
\nheld  that it is for the legislature to make provisions\t for
\nremoval of doubts or difficulties. The section in that\tcase
\n,contained   a\tprovision  that\t the  order  must   not\t  be
\ninconsistent   with  the  Purposes  of\tthe  Act.    Another
\nprovision  in the section made the order of  the  Government
\nfinal.\tThis Court held that in substance there was the vice
\nof  delegation of legislation to executive  authority.\t Two
\nreasons\t were  given.\tFirst  the  section  authorised\t the
\nGovernment to determine for itself what the purposes of\t the
\nAct  were  and to make provisions for removal of  doubts  or
\ndifficulties.\tSecond,\t the Power to remove the  doubts  or
\ndifficulties by altering the provisions of the Act would  in
\nsubstance  amount to exercise of legislative authority\t,and
\nthat  could not be delegated to an executive authority.\t  In
\nthe  Present  case,  neither  finality\tnor  alteration\t  is
\ncontemplated  in  any  Order under section 34  of  the\tAct.
\nSection\t 34  is for giving effect to the provisions  of\t the
\nAct.   This  provision\tis an application  of  the  internal
\nfunctioning  of the administrative machinery.\tDifficulties
\ncan  only arise in the implementation of rules.\t  Therefore,
\nsection\t 34  of\t the  Act  does\t not  amount  to   excessive
\ndelegation.\n<\/p>\n
Section 28 of the Act was challenged as conferring arbitrary
\nand  unguided power and, therefore violative of Articles  14
\nand  15.   Section  28\tof the\tAct  confers  power  on\t the
\nGovernment to appoint persons
\n677<\/span>
\nas  it thinks fit to be the inspectors for the\tpurposes  of
\nthe Act and such inspector shall have power to enter at\t all
\nreasonable hours the premises or place where contract labour
\nis  employed  for the purpose of examining any\tregister  or
\nrecord\tor notice and examine any person and seize, or\ttake
\ncopies\tof  documents  mentioned therein.   When  they\thave
\nreasons to believe that an offence has been committed,\tthey
\ncan  seize  or\ttake copies.  This point was  taken  by\t the
\nIntervener.   An. intervener cannot raise points  which\t are
\nnot canvassed by the petitioners in the pleadings.
\nFor these reasons, the contentions of the petitioners  fail.
\nThe  petitions\tare dismissed.\tParties will  pay  and\tbear
\ntheir own costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t     Petitions dismissed.\n678<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 960, 1974 SCR (3) 665 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Reddy, P. Jaganmohan, Dwivedi, S.N., Goswami, P.K., Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: GAMMON INDIA LTD. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\"},\"wordCount\":5487,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\",\"name\":\"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974","datePublished":"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974"},"wordCount":5487,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974","name":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T11:54:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-etc-on-20-march-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gammon India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 March, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110836"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110836\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}