Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

After more than five years, the respondent No.5 issued a Notice of Inspection under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (the CLRA Act) vide e-mail dated 17.02.2020 stating that as per the directives of respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the inspection of petitioner establishment has been proposed on 18.02.2020. Petitioner submitted letter dated 18.02.2020, enclosing copy of its earlier letter dated 16.12.2014 reiterating its stand on the subject. However, respondent No.5 visited the establishment of the petitioner on 02.03.2020 and prepared an Inspection Note observing that the petitioner has not obtained the Certificate of Registration from the Registering Officer of the Central Government under the CLRA Act. The said Inspection Note was followed by a Notice dated 03.03.2020 alleging irregularities / non- compliances calling upon the petitioner to rectify the alleged irregularities wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J and report compliance and also Show Cause as to why legal action should not be taken against the petitioner for the alleged irregularities. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation vide letter dated 27.03.2020, however, respondent No.2 launched prosecution vide STC No.1 of 2021 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class, Nampally, Hyderabad. Against the said STC No.1 of 2021, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.1991 of 2021 before this Court seeking to quash the complaint and the said criminal petition is pending.

Respondent No.2 issued Notice dated 05.03.2021 to respondent No.3- Contractor alleging that respondent No.3 constitutes a Scheduled Employment under the Minimum Wages Act and there is a short payment of wages by respondent No.3 to its employees when Notification Nos.190(E) / 191(E) are applied. In fact, respondent No.3 obtained license under CLRA wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J Act from the State Labour Department and is complying with the Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government for the Schedule of Employment "Contract Labour Act" applicable to it. Similar notices were issued by respondent No.2 to five other Contractors. Petitioner sent a detailed letter dated 05.04.2021 to respondent No.2, replying all the six notices issued by him, reiterating its stand/contention that the said notices are malicious intimidation after six years and would be legally impermissible in law. However, respondent No.2, without considering the facts mentioned in the said Reply, once again harping on the alternative plea in W.P.No.35582 of 2014, vide letter dated 15.04.2021 stated that the petitioner and its Contractors come under Central Labour Department and that they shall comply with all the provisions of applicable enactments in Central sphere which are enforceable by them. Respondent No.2 proceeded to file Applications, i.e., MW Nos.18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of 2021 against the Contractors and the petitioner herein under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act before respondent No.1 claiming the alleged differential wages. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a non-government metro Railway within the meaning of Section 2(1)(l) of the MROM Act and consequently, it is neither carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, nor is it a Railway Administration nor a Corporation established by the Central Government so as to say that the Central Government is the "appropriate Government" under the Minimum Wages Act, and therefore the impugned proceedings which are instituted against the Contractors and the petitioner, alleging differential wages, applying the Notifications issued by the Central Government, which are not applicable to the petitioner and its Contractors even remotely, are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be prohibited by this Court by issuance of Writ of Prohibition. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1, 2, and 5 being subordinate officers of respondent No.4-Deputy Chief wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J Labour Commissioner (Central), the Inspections have been carried on as per the directives of the respondent No.4 and therefore the exercise is futile and prejudicial as it is bound by the dictateof respondent No.4. Petitioner therefore assails the Proceedings instituted under MW Application Nos.18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of 2021, as void ab initio.

Learned Senior Counsel contending that the impugned proceedings are bound by the dictate of respondent No.4 who is the higher authority and therefore not impartial, relies on the judgment in Filter Co. v. CST 1. He also (1986) 2 SCC 103 wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J relies on Collector of Customs v. Bava 2, K.S. Venkatraman & Co (P) Ltd. V. State of Madras 3, to contend that the petitioner raises an important question of interpretation of statutory provisions and therefore a writ remedy is the appropriate one, especially when an alternative remedy is an empty formality as held in Thampu Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of U.P. 4. Petitioner also relies on GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd v. State of A.P. 5wherein this Court, referring to the case in Cochin International Airport Ltd. V. Regional Labour Commissioner 6, declared that the State Government is the "appropriate Government" but not the Central Government under the CLRA Act. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Chennai Metro Rail Limited 7, and CMRL Employees Union 8, wherein the High Court of Madras has extensively dealt with the provisions of MRCW Act, MROM Act, and the ID Act, the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and resolved the conflict between the Central and State Labour Departments by declaring that the State Government Labour Department and its authorities are appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act insofar as Chennai Metro Railway Limited. Learned Senior Counsel further contends, relying on the judgment of this Court in Group4 Securitas Guarding Private Limited v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) 9, wherein it was held that though the petitioner therein (Group4 Securitas) is rendering services to the Bank (a Central undertaking), the petitioner is not amenable to the Central Government jurisdiction and the appropriate Government for the petitioner is the State Government. Learned Senior AIR 1968 SC 13 AIR 1966 SC 1089 (2007) 8 SCC 338 2009 (2) KLJ 232 W.P.No.26995 of 2009 (Madras High Court) W.P.No.12931 of 2019 (Madras High Court) W.P.No.3198 of 2006 (Telangana & A.P High Court) wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J Counsel further relies on Victor Joseph, Regional Managing Director, Group4 Securities Guarding Limited v. State 10, wherein it was held that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government, and thereby the complaint lodged by the officer of Central Government for alleged violation of provisions of Section 24 of the CLRA Act, was quashed. Learned Senior Counsel further relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in P.R. Catering v. State of Bihar 11, wherein the Court relied on Carisbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. P.K. Sarkar 12, and held that the business of Food and Beverages carried on under the license from Central Government/Railway Administration for supply at different Railway Stations on running trains cannot be said to be carried on by the Central Government or under the authority of the Central Government and consequently, the complied filed by the Central Government was quashed. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on M/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Customs 13, Durvasula Sambamurthy, Formerly Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi, Pithapuram, Now District Panchayat Officer, Nellore v. The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada 14, N.G. Panga v. The Election Commission, India 15, Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 16.

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, basing on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, would primarily contend that the provisions of Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 refer only to the Central Government, and therefore the Metro Railway is functioning only under the control of Central Government. It is contended 2006 (2) LLN 259 2002-I-LLJ-227 AIR 1952 Cal. Page 6 AIR 1962 SC 1893 1979 SCC OnLine AP 86 1970 (2) AnWR 255 (1986) 2 SCC 103 wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J that the HMRL Project falls under Metro Railway Administration and under Section 45 of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the Central Government is the appropriate Government for the petitioner. It is contended that the Central Government is the appropriate Government even under CLRA Act, and also the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and that even the petitioner has confirmed in their sworn affidavit in W.P.No.35582 of 2014 before this Court that the appropriate Government is the Central Government for HMRL. It is stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit as follows: