Groheven Tradex Private Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1038 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 25-5-1998 and the subsequent communication dated 25-9-1998 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 4. By the show cause notice dated 25-5-1998 the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur, Maharashtra respondent No. 4 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence No. ALCH-46 (53J/97 dated 11-6-1997, issued to the petitioner be not revoked since the work done, fell in the prohibited category as per the Government of India notification No. S. 16011/1/74-LW (S.O. 488) dated 1-2-1975. The notice in terms stated that "the licence is being revoked" and simultaneously asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not revoked. The communication dated 25-9-1998, was in continuation to the above show cause notice, which stated that since the licence had expired on 10-6-1998, no further action was being initiated pursuant to the show cause notice dated 25-5-1998.

3. Apart from the quashing of the above show cause notice and the subsequent communication, the petitioner also sought directions for enforcement of the notification of the Government of India in respect of other contractors. Writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought for directing the respondent No. 4 to renew/grant a fresh licence to the petitioner to conclude the contract work.

4. The petitioner had been awarded a contract vide work order dated 22-5-1997 by respondent No. 7. The description of work is as under :--

DESCRIPTION Of WORK RATE VALUE OF WORK

Hiring of Track mounted Excavators, tippers for Removal of Black cotton Soil/Top Soil at Ballarpur Opencast Mine its loading, transportation and un-loading at the decaled Areas as shown by management for environment purpose.

Rs. 20.00 per cum.

Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

(Rs. one crore only)

Lighting. Pumping, Dozing, Drilling and Blasting will be done departmently.

Lead : Min. 0.6 KM. Max. l.5KM Lift : Min. 8 Mtrs. Max. 20Mtrs. Average Daily rate of OB removal to be 5,600 cum.

QUANTITY. 5,00,000 cum.

5. As noticed earlier, the show cause notice dated 25-9-1998 proceeded on the basis that the aforesaid work as awarded to the petitioner fell within the prohibition category of work in terms of notification dated 21-1-1998 and subsequent amendment dated 21-6-1998. The notification is as under :

Ministry of Labour, Noti. No. S.O. 2063, dated June 21, 1998,

published in 1989 CCL-III-12

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Noti. No. S. O. 488, dated the 1st February, 1975, published in the Gazette of India, Part-11, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 15th February, 1975, the Central Government after consultation with the Central Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour in the work specified in the Schedule annexed hereto in all coal mines in the country.

THE SCHEDULE

1. Raising or raising-cum-selling of coal;

2. Coal loading and unloading;

3. Overburden removal and earth cutting;

4. Soft coke manufacturing;

5. Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground;

Provided that this notification shall not apply to the following categories :--

(a) quarries in the North-East Coal Field which can only be worked for a few months every year due to heavy rainfall in the area;

(b) quarries located by the side of the river in punch valley and similar other patch deposits which can only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non-rainy seasons;

(c) loading coal when there is mechanical failure, failure of power or irregular supply of wagons by the Railways; and

(d) cutting stone drifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration, say up to six months."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that it was necessary for the Court to decide whether the work as awarded to the petitioner fell within the prohibition of the notification or not? Learned counsel submitted that this would have wide ramification as work similar to that of petitioner was being got executed from others without any hindrance. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the plea of the petitioner on grounds of maintainability of the writ petition. It was urged that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Besides, the petitioner was seeking enforcement of contractual rights. The petitioners remedy if aggrieved by the action of respondents V to 9 was by way of damages for breach of contract.

9. Having perused the record and considered the rival submissions urged before me, I am of the view that in these facts, it is not necessary for the Court to express any opinion with regard to Contract work falling within the prohibition of the notification or not. In this regard, the petitioner, who received the show cause notice did not respond to the authorities in replying to the show cause notice and instead he wrote to the respondent No. 7 informing him of the receipt of the notice. Petitioner urged the respondent No. 7 to resolve the matter with the authorities and sought their intervention for resolving the matter. This communication was addressed to respondent No. 7 on 4-6-1998. It is significant to notice that while the show cause notice was dated 25-5-1998, the licence of the petitioner was valid till 10-6-1998. No reply to the authority to the show cause notice appears to have been sent by the petitioner. The licence itself expired on 10-6-1998 and the petitioner did not seek any fresh licence or renewal of the same. It is also not disputed before me that immediately on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner had stopped the work and did not carry out any further work. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a finding from the Court on whether work awarded to the petitioner fell within the prohibition of the notification or not, would help in expeditious disposal of claim for damages.

10. I am not persuaded by the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition for the Court to express any opinion with regard to the nature of the work falling with the provision of the Notification or not. As noticed earlier, petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, stopped the work, did not reply to the show cause notice and has permitted his licence to expire. There is nothing further to be done in the contract, except for the petitioner to avail of his remedies for damages against respondents 7 to 10, for which, he claims, there is an arbitration agreement in existence.

11. Moreover, as noticed earlier, the work in question was awarded and executed in Maharashtra, the show cause notice was in Maharashtra by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the whole cause of action took place in Maharashtra and respondents 7 to 9, against whom petitioner claims a cause of action, are based in Maharashtra. Mere impleadment of Coal India Ltd., the nodal authority, or of Union of India will not confer jurisdiction to this Court. This would yet be another reason for not entertaining the writ petition.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.