Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

*** (D) Because the Ld. Appellate Tribunal and respondent failed to appreciate that the record can be only available either with the Contractor as under Rule 74 and 75 of the Contract Labour (Regulation) &Abolition Act, 1970, which clearly says that "Principal employer shall maintain a register of the Contractor in Form XII and as per Rule 75 every Contractor shall maintain the record of the employees of Contract Labour or with the License Authority, who issued the License under Rule 18 and 21 of the CLRA Act to the Contractor to hire the contract labour, but instead of asking the contractor or the Licensing authority to produce the record, directed the Petitioner to produce the record of the year 12/1980 to 01/1988 & 05/1990 to 04/1991 like the Attendance Register at Depot and wrongly illegally shifted the onus upon the petitioner.

31. It is submitted that the respondent RPFC as well as the learned Appellate Authority failed to consider that under the Contract Labour (Regulation) & Abolition Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation And Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter "CLRA"), the record of the contract labour, hired by the contractor, can only be available with the concerned contractor.

32. It is submitted that under Rule 75 of the CLRA, the contractor is bound to maintain the details of the contract labour and as per Rule 74 of the W.P.(C) 8237/2014 & 17 other connected matters Signing Date:15.04.2024 19:35:11 CLRA, the petitioner, being the principal employer, has to maintain the details of the contractor.

33. It is also submitted that Rule 74 of the CLRA clearly mentions that a principal employer is required to maintain a register of the contractors in Form XII, which would contain only the information of the contractor and as per Rule 75 of the CLRA, every contractor would maintain the record of the employees of contract labour. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment titled Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha2 where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court explained Rule 75 of the CLRA as above. The respondent RPFC as well as the learned Appellate Authority Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden upon the petitioner to produce records which were more than 35 years old and actually maintained by the contractors.

77. The learned Appellate Authority also held that in terms of Rule 75 and 78 of CLRA, the petitioner, being the principal employer, is mandated to maintain the register of employees of the contractors, muster roll, wage register etc., therefore, even if the contractors failed to appear and produce the records regarding the workers, adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner due to its failure to produce the above said records.