Krisnna Vasudeo Kotwal And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 839 Bom

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Mr. Dharap, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order of the State Government dated September 11, 1989 and the Report submitted by the State Contract Labour Advisory Board on August 29, 1989 are bad in law as the relevant factors provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 were not taken into consideration.

3. Prior to the present writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 182 of 1989 before this Court which was disposed of on April 11, 1989 by the following order:

"(a) The petitioners are permitted to make an application to the State Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Mr. Dharap appearing for the petitioners states that such an application will be made latest by end of this month.

(b) On such application being made, the State Government shall, within one month of receipt thereof, forward the same to the State Contract Labour Board for consideration of the demand for abolition of contract labour system. The Board should, after notice to and hearing all the parties, decide the said application on merits and in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible but in any event latest within four months of receipt of the said application from the State Government. The decision should be by speaking order with reasons in support thereof.

(c) It is further directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the a proceedings by the State Contract Labour, Board and for a period of thirty days of intimation of its order to the parties including the petitioners herein, the principal employer respondent No. 4 shall not terminate the agreement with the third respondent contractor nor shall the third respondent contractor terminate the services of the petitioners employees save and except on the ground of misconduct.

(d) It is further directed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the proceedings by the State Contract Labour Board and for a period of thirty days of intimation of its order to the 3rd and 4th respondents, the 3rd and/or 4th respondent shall continue the presently subsisting contract between them.

(e) According to Mr. Cama appearing for the third respondent, the services of petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 13 and 31 have not been terminated but they have been only transferred. He makes a statement here recorded to the effect that in the event of the said petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 13 and 31 reporting for duty at the transferred place, duties will be assigned to them and they will also be paid their salaries.

2. Order accordingly on this petition which is thus disposed of."

4. Pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid order, the petitioners made an application before the State Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The State Government, accordingly, upon receipt of the application, forwarded the petitioners' application to the State Contract Labour Advisory Board for consideration of demand for abolition of Contract Labour System and, accordingly, the State Contract Labour Advisory Board convened its meeting on August 29, 1989. A note was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in relation to the subject, copy thereof was also sent to the present petitioners, We find from the Board's Report dated August 29, 1989, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents that the subject was considered thoroughly and elaborately in the said meeting of the Board. Inter alia, the Board in its Report held thus:

"It thus means that the contract labour system of working is permitted in the establishments which engage such exempted security agencies. With this background in view the Chairman brought to the notice of the members of the Board at large that presently security guards registered with the Bombay Board are being paid at the rate of Rs. 760/- p.m. As against this, Avanti Services pay their men at the rate of Rs. 30 per day thereby meaning that the same is in excess as compared to the remuneration being paid to the guards registered with the Bombay Board. Moreover, other service conditions as offered to their men by Avanti Services can be said to be satisfactory. With this, it could be said that there is no exploitation of contract labour in the instant case. It would be, therefore, correct and proper not to recommend to Government abolition of contract labour system of working in the security area of this Nasik Company. It would be however, necessary to suggest to the principal employer viz., Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Nasik to take effective adequate steps to ensure that the service conditions of the contract labour are adequately improved so as to bring them on par with the service conditions of direct labour at the unskilled level. Shri C.B. Dingare, Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra brought to the notice of the Board members that prima facie the Board has not recommended abolition of contract labour in security area in any unit so far. It would be, therefore, necessary to be very cautious while making a beginning in this area with all its implications flowing from such action. This line of thinking and the Minister's observations as above on the issue under reference were duly accepted by all the Board members barring Shri P.R. Krishnan who insisted that he has the firm objection thereto. Ultimately, it was the consensus decision of the Board not to abolish the contract labour system of working in the security area of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. at Nasik. It was however, decided to strongly recommend to the management that the service and working conditions of contract labour are brought on par with those of direct labour at the level of unskilled category through effective efforts vis-à-vis Avanti Services, Nasik."

5. The Board thus found that though the salary paid by the Bombay Board to the security guards is at the rate of Rs. 760/- per month, the contractor was paying at the rate of Rs. 30/-per day, which is in excess of the remuneration. being paid to the guards registered with the Board. The Advisory Board also found that the other conditions of service offered by the contractor are satisfactory and it cannot be said that there was any exploitation of the labour employed by the contractor.

6. The Board, further observed that the Principal Employer Mahindra & Mahindra should take adequate steps to ensure that the service conditions of the contract labour are improved so as to bring them on par with those of direct labour at the unskilled level. The Board, therefore, found that it was not necessary to abolish the contract labour system of work in the security area of Mahindra & Mahindra. The Board's Report appears to have been considered by the State Government and by order dated September 11, 1989, the State Government rejected the demand made by the petitioners to abolish contract labour system of supplying security guards to the contractor. The order passed by the State Government cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law nor the consideration of the matter by the Board can be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

7. No case for interference is made out in the writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. No costs.

9. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited.