Steel
Authority of India Ltd. &Ors. vs. National Union Water Front Workers
&Ors.
Facts
The
appellants, a Central Government Company with a branch manager, conduct
business through Central Marketing Organization, which serves as its marketing
unit and has a network of branches throughout India. They are involved in the
production and sale of various kinds of iron and steel commodities.
Following
a proper tendering procedure, contractors were hired to handle the products in
the appellants' stockyards.
The
hiring of contract workers in four specific Calcutta stockyards was outlawed on
July 15, 1989, by West Bengal government notification issued under Section
10(1) (the prohibition notification) of the CLRA Act.
By
notice dated August 28, 1989, the Government of West Bengal put the
aforementioned notification on hold for a period of six months initially. From
that point on, the timeframe was periodically extended, but it was not
prolonged past August 31, 1994.
HIGH
COURT DECISION: In light of the State Government's
prohibition notification dated July 15, 1989, the first respondent-Union, who
is advocating on behalf of these contract labourers, filed a Writ Petition with
the Calcutta High Court, asking for a directive to incorporate the contract
labour into their regular establishment and further requesting that the
notification keeping the prohibition notification in effect be revoked. The
High Court allowed the writ petition, nullified all extension notifications,
and ordered that contract labour be absorbed and regularised within six months
of the judgement date, or April 25, 1994.
The
appellants used a two-pronged assault technique. They appealed the high court's
aforementioned decision in a writ case and contested the prohibition
notification in the Calcutta High Court. While the High Court was considering
these cases, this Court issued its ruling, concluding that the Central
Government is the appropriate government in cases involving Central Government
Companies. This ruling upheld the validity of the Central Government's
notification, which was issued in accordance with Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act
and forbade the use of contract labour in all of the Central Government
Companies' establishments.
However,
on July 3, 1998, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the
appellants' writ petition and writ appeal, believing that the State Government
was "the proper Government" at the time.
Issues
1.
What exactly does "appropriate government," as it is described in
Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the CLRA Act, mean?
2.
Is the Central Government's notification of a restriction made according to
Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act legal and applicable to all Central Government
companies?
3.
Does the issuance of a valid notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act,
forbidding the contract labour, result in the automatic absorption of contract
labour, working in the establishment of the major employer, as regular
employees?
Arguments
Argument
by counsel of Appellants
The
State Government was the appropriate government on the relevant date, so the
Central Government's December 9, 1976, notification was never sought to be
applied to the establishments of FCI and ONGC. However, because the definition
of the term "appropriate Government" was changed on January 28, 1986,
the Central Government would then be the appropriate government., adopted the
learned Solicitor's arguments.
Argument
by counsel of Respondent
In
the case of FCI, the Central Government was the proper government both before
and after the January 28, 1986, announcement.
All
Central Government undertakings that fall within the definition of "other
authorities" in Article 12 are representatives of the State acting as its
agents or instruments, making the Central Government the proper government. In
the matter of Heavy Engineering, the court took a private law
interpretation-based approach; instead, the court should have taken a public
law interpretation-based approach.
It
has been ruled that a business registered under the Companies Act or a society
registered under the Societies Act would be a "State" and, as a
result, it would fulfil the need of the definition of "appropriate
government" in cases where there is extensive and pervasive control.
Held
The
Court must give weight to a statute's clear and unambiguous wording because, in
such situation, the statute's terms unmistakably express the legislature's
objective. This requirement of literal reading must be followed, and the
Statute's clause.
The
Court must be persuaded that the specific industry in question is operated by
or with the consent of the Central Government in order to rule that it is the
proper government with regard to any enterprise. Given that the industry in
issue is operated by a Central Government company/an undertaking under the
authority of the Central Government, it follows that the Central Government
will be the "appropriate Government" under the CLRA Act and the I.D.
Act. When the statute under which it was founded grants the Government
Company/any undertaking the authority to carry on any industry for or on behalf
of the Central Government.
It
is necessary to determine the facts and circumstances of each case in order to
determine whether the Central Government has given the Government Company any
permission or undertaking to engage in the relevant industry.
0 Comments