Kerala High Court
Powar vs Labour Enforcement Officer (C) on 29 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ26, [1992(65)FLR907], (1993)ILLJ521KER
ORDER Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Petitioner is the Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, Trivandrum. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in ST. 67 of 1991 of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum on the ground that the proceedings clearly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
2. S. T. 67 of 1991 was taken to file by the Court on a complaint preferred by the first respondent against the petitioner and the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The accusation is that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act by engaging three contract labourers for sweeping, cleaning and watching of the residential quarters of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, which is prohibited as per Notification No. Section 779(E) dated December 9, 1976 of the Government of India pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act. Second respondent is implicated on the allegation that he has abetted the commission of the aforesaid offence.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that employment of contract labour in the residential quarters of the Reserve Bank Officers does not come within the ambit of Section 10(1) of the Act. 5 Petitioner contends that no contract labourer has been appointed under the Reserve Bank establishment and as the complaint itself only discloses such employment in the residential quarters of the Reserve Bank Officers no offence has been made out under Section 10 of the Act.
4. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the employment of contract labour in the residential quarters of the Reserve Bank establishment would come within the mischief of Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 (1) prohibits employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Respondent contended that the prohibition of contract labour would apply to the residential quarters as well in view of its close connection with the Bank. It is argued that the residential quarters cannot be disassociated from the Bank as residential accommodation is provided to the officers only because they are part of the establishment. In other words, it is contended that the occupation of the residential building by the officers of the bank would clearly show that they reside there being intimately connected with the activities of the bank.
5. Section 10 prohibits employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. When the section specifically postulates so, wider interpretation to extend the prohibition to works connected with the establishment cannot be given. The words "employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment" are to be construed as ejusdem generis. The rule is that where general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. As Section 10(1) mentions "other work in any establishment" and not other work connected with the establishment, the section cannot be interpreted to give it a meaning which it did not intend. Employment of contract labour to the residential quarters of the officers of the Reserve Bank cannot be construed as work in any establishment.
6. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the words "other work in any establishment" in Section 10 of the Act. In Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India 1974-I-LLJ-489 Supreme Court held in paragraph 16 thus (p. 493):
"The words 'other work in any establishment' in Section 10 are to be construed as ejusdem generis. The expression 'other work' in the collocation of words 'process, operation or other work in any establishment' occurring in Section 10 has not the same meaning as the expression 'in connection with the work of an establishment', spoken in relation to workmen or contractor".
7. Contention of respondent that the notification issued by the Central Government would make the position abundantly clear that employment of contract labour is prohibited in buildings owned or occupied by establishment and so it would equally apply to the residential buildings of the officers of the Reserve Bank is not tenable. Notification cannot go beyond the scope of Section 10(1). As Section 10(1) specifically prohibits employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment and as it cannot include any work connected with the establishment the prohibition envisaged under Section 10(1) is not attracted to employment of contract labour in the residential quarters of the bank.
8. Establishment is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. Establishment means: (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. From the definition of 'establishment' it cannot be held that the residential quarters of the bank would come within its fold. If that be so, employment of contract labour in the residential quarters would not amount to an offence under Section 10.
9. The notification by the Ministry of Labour No. S. O. 779(E) dated December 9, 1976 reads:
"In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour on and from March 1, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government:
Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operation or multistoreyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialised experience".
As the definition of the word 'establishment' in the Act specifically mentions only office or department of the Government or a local authority or any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on, the notification cannot make any improvement or addition to the definition to include residential quarters. Notification cannot go beyond what Section 10(1) of the Act has envisaged. Contention that as per notification residential buildings owned by the Reserve Bank would also come within the purview of the Act is not tenable.
10. As the allegations in the complaint do not amount to any offence under the Act, I hold that it has to be quashed. Proceedings in S.T. 67 of 1991 stand quashed.
11. The petition is allowed.