Jharkhand High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 28 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 1073 of 2014
----
Court on its Own Motion Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II
For the TVNL, HCL, UML : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate & BCCL Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate Fort Res. No. 21 & 39 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For Res. 11 & 12 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate For JANC : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For Res. Nos. 13, 24, 25, : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 41 Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For Res. No.9, 34 & 35 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate For the Res. No.26-BHL : Mr. Chitranjan Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, Advocate
--------
Order No. 66 : Dated 28 April, 2026 th
1. Reference be made to the order dated 27th April, 2026, in pursuance thereto, the officers concerned, namely, Mr. Manish Kumar Sinha, Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Jharkhand and Mr. Shivanand Laguri, Inspector of Factories, Bokaro have appeared.
-1-
2. The issue for which two officers have been called for particularly, the Chief Inspector of Factories, is that it has been pointed out in the report of the CIMFR that in the three units, i.e., M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (Respondent No.32), M/s. Electro Steel Limited, Bokaro (Respondent No.40) and M/s. Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (Respondent No.35), the health measure are not being followed adequately by carving out distinction in between the employees under regular establishment and the contract labourers.
3. A labour welfare legislation was enacted immediately after the country became independent in the name and style of the Factories Act, 1948. The underlying object of the Factories Act, 1948 was to ensure adequate safety measures and to promote the health and welfare of the workers employed in the factories.
4. Another underlying idea was that if the best atmosphere will be given to the workers by providing adequate standards of safety, health and welfare at all work places, the maximum production can be secured.
5. The aforesaid Act has now been repealed by bringing into enactment in the name and style of Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, given effect to on 21.11.2025.
6. The State of Jharkhand had formulated the Rules for the establishment under the Factories Act, 1948 to carry out the -2- statutory command as was to be achieved in view of the enactment of the Factories Act, 1948.
7. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that after repealment of the Factories Act, 1948 and coming into effect of Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, the State of Jharkhand has not come out with the Rules in pursuance to the new Act.
8. It has been submitted that to secure the object, particularly the welfare of the workmen, the State of Jharkhand has taken a decision to carry out the function under the provision of Factories Act, 1948 itself under which the Rule was already formulated.
9. The concern is that this Court is monitoring on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to assess as to whether the object and spirit of the Act, 1948 is being adhered to or not?
10. This Court has called upon the reports from the various units who have been arrayed as respondents. The affidavits have been filed showing that all the activities which are required to be followed under the Factories Act, 1948, are being followed and thereby the affidavits have been filed showing therein that whatever irregularities have been pointed out in the report submitted by the CIMFR, have been complied with and in the factories where it has not been complied with, the same has been rectified.
-3-
11. Three units, namely, M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. (Respondent No.32), M/s. Electro Steel Limited, Bokaro (Respondent No.40) and M/s. Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (Respondent No.35) have been found to be not following the health measure adequately by carving out distinction in between the employees who have been inducted in service under the regular establishment and who are rendering their services in the capacity of contract labours.
12. We are conscious that the contract labour has been deprecated by the legislation and subject to condition of its regulation, an Act has been enacted in the name and style of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
13. The underlying object of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was that the contract labour has not been found to be fair and, as such, enactment has been made out to abolish it and subject to the requirement if the unit has taken a decision that abolishing the contract labour is not possible, then in such circumstances, the regulation, so that there may not be exploitation by way of unfair practices meted towards the workmen. This Act although has been repealed.
14. The question is that the repealment of an Act is one thing and if the Act is being repealed by supersession by the new Act, it does not mean that the object which was available in the previous Act, has also been said to be stand deleted. -4-
15. The concern of this Court in the instant Public Interest Litigation is that there must be fairness on the part of the unit holders towards the workmen.
16. The question of making disparity in between the regular employee and the contract labour has been found out by CIMFR so far as M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd., M/s. Electro Steel Limited, Bokaro and M/s. Chandrapura Thermal Power Station are concerned.
17. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. and M/s. Electro Steel Limited, Bokaro has submitted that there is no discrimination for the purpose of meeting out the disparity to the workmen working under these two establishments, rather, they have been given benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.
18. Providing medical facilities by having any accidental issue causing to any workman in course of discharge of his duty, for that purpose the arrangement is to be made out. For example, if a workman is working in the factory and all of a sudden a workman has been meted out an accident, then it is the primary accountability of the unit holder to get the workman treated properly. E.S.I. Scheme is one thing but providing immediate medical aid is another thing. The meeting out accident in course of discharge of duty is the sole accountability of the management.
-5-
19. The Chief Inspector of Factories and Inspector of Factory, Bokaro have been called upon. This Court has posed a specific query that whether the Inspector of Factories who are being posted in different districts are discharging their duty by visiting the factories for conducting random inspection.
20. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel-II, has submitted that the parameter has been provided as to in which circumstances the factory is to be inspected.
21. We fail to understand how can there be a parameter for inspection when the entire establishment has been formulated for the aforesaid purpose. It is the bounden duty of the Inspector of Factories to randomly inspect the factories to have the satisfaction that the legislation is being followed in its letter and spirit. It is not that only calling upon reports from the units, the satisfaction is to be recorded. We are not concern with the table inspection, rather, we are concern with the physical inspection of the factories in order to achieve the underlying object of the Factories Act, whether repealed or new enactment.
22. In course of interaction, it has been informed to this Court that Chief Inspector of Factories is presently working in in- charge capacity since he is holding the substantive post of Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories.
23. This Court is very much surprised that the Chief Inspector of Factories is the apex authority in the State of Jharkhand to -6- look into the entire establishment of the factories for the purpose of welfare being of the workmen but the State of Jharkhand is still carrying out the work by following the ad- hocism by allowing the service of the Chief Inspector of Factories in in-charge capacity.
24. This Court, in such circumstances, needs to implead the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand as party respondent.
25. In course of interaction, it has been submitted that the advertisement has been floated and now the selection process is under consideration by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The examination was scheduled to be held on 26th April, 2026 but for one reason or the other, it has been deferred.
26. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, has also thought it proper to implead the Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman as party respondent.
27. Office is directed to carry out necessary addition in the cause title.
28. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel-II waives notice on behalf of newly added respondent, i.e., the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand.
29. It has been informed that Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, is the retained counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. -7-
30. This Court has made request to the learned Amicus Curiae to send the scanned copy of the order-sheet to Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel.
31. Let the name of Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel, be reflected in the daily cause list.
32. Let affidavits be filed by newly impleaded respondents, i.e., Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training and Jharkhand Public Service Commission, to apprise this Court regarding the issue of not filling up the post of Chief Inspector of Factories on substantive basis.
33. So far as the further direction upon the incumbent who is holding the post as Chief Inspector of Factories and Inspector of Factories is concerned, let the periodical inspection report be produced before this Court by filing further affidavit.
34. List this matter after two weeks on 14.05.2026.
35. The personal appearance of Mr. Manish Kumar Sinha, Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Jharkhand and Mr. Shivanand Laguri, Inspector of Factories, Bokaro is dispensed with for the present.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Date : 28 th
April, 2026
Birendra/-
-8-