Delhi High Court
National Thermal Power ... vs Government Of National Capital ... on 1 August, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Page 2830
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification No.F-2(1)/CLA/LC/95(2)/484 of Delhi dated 31.7.1995 issued by Govt. of NCT under Section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolitions) Act, 1970.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking having its head office at New Delhi and was engaged in generation of electricity in the country and has got branches/regional offices throughout India. The petitioner was having its office at Scope Complex, 7 Lodhi Road and for the Page 2831 operation and maintenance of air conditioning system of this office, the petitioner had engaged contractor M/s Utility Engineers (P) Ltd., 16, Shopping Complex, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The petitioner had license to engage contract labour. The respondent No.2, a trade union had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution praying that the members of respondent NO.2 be directed to be absorbed and regularized by the petitioner. A prayer was also made by the respondent No.2 to direct Delhi Administration to abolish contract labour system for the maintenance of air conditioning system. Supreme Court passed an order dated 29.3.1995 directing that the appropriate government to take a decision on the demand made by the union and to consider whether a fit case for prohibition of contract labour in accordance with Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act was made out or not. In pursuance of the order of Supreme Court, a representation was filed by respondent No.2 before the Delhi Government who referred the matter to Labour Advisory Board. The petitioner also filed its statement before Labour Advisory Board and stated that Labour Advisory Board of Delhi Government had no jurisdiction over the petitioner for issuance of the notification under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. The petitioner also took the stand that the work of maintenance of air conditioning plant was not perennial in nature and it was a seasonal work. However, the impugned notification was issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi prohibiting employing of contract labour for the operation and maintenance of air conditioning system of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has challenged the notification on twin grounds (i) that the Lt. Governor/ the Government of Union Territory of Delhi was not the appropriate Government for the petitioner which was a public sector undertaking engaged in generation of electricity and was under control of Central Government; (ii) that relevant factors specified under Section 10(2) of Contract Labour Act have not been considered before issuing the notification.
4. No counter has been filed to the writ petition by the respondent despite the fact that respondents were served as back in 1996 and time was sought for filing reply.
5. In 2003 Vol. I LLJ Pg. 494 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Anr. v. Hindustan Aero Canteen K. Sangh and Ors. Supreme Court held:
The question that arise for consideration in this case is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the State Government is the 'appropriate Government' under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has recently ruled in the case of SAIL and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront workers and Ors. 2001-II-LLJ-1087 that appropriate Government will be the Government which exercises control and authority over the concerned organization. It is undisputed that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an undertaking of the Central Government which exercises full control over the same. Issuance of license by State Government is no criteria to come to the conclusion that the State Government would be the appropriate Government. Impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore erroneous in view of the Constitution Bench Page 2832 decision of the Supreme Court. Impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is held that the Central Government is the appropriate Government in this case. (para 2).
6. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking under the Central Government and it is Central Government who exercises full control over the petitioner. It would be Central Government which is the appropriate Government for the purpose of the Act in this case. In a writ petition No.20474/89 before the High Court of Allahbad, vide judgment dated 19.4.1995, the court had held that the appropriate Government in case of NTPC was Central Government as NTPC was being controlled by the Central Government and the reference made by the State Government was set aside. Similarly Madya Pradesh High Court in a case reported in 1989 (58) FLR summary of cases (8) the court held that the appropriate Government in case of NTPC would the Central Government and the reference made by Deputy Commissioner of Labour of MP was not competent.
7. In view of above legal position, in my opinion, the appropriate Government in case of NTPC for the purpose of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, would be the Central Government. The notification issued by the Lt. Governor of Government of NCT of Delhi was without jurisdiction as the Delhi Government was not the competent government to issue the notification. The notification is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.
