Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the fact that the Sub-Committee's reasoning is sound for not recommending prohibition of contract labour in sweeping/cleaning etc., we may accept it. But in so far as guarding of buildings is concerned, it would not be proper to immediately prohibit deployment of contract labour just because some security guards of private agencies, deployed in some administrative buildings of Air India, have in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, work of perennial nature. Security of Air India's administrative building is a highly sensitive issue particularly in the context of terrorism and we should not cause even a minor dislocation in the existing arrangement without making sure that a more foolproof arrangement through regular security force is made for the purpose. In the circumstances, we may write to the Ministry of Civil Aviation that the work of security of such buildings be better handled by the CISF/a regular security force and give a period of three months for a switch over. We may also write to the Ministry regarding enforcement of Rule 25(2)(v) ibid in respect of contract workers engaged in cleaning/sweeping of buildings of Air India.

Even though we may agree that regular workers are perhaps needed for 'security', we cannot prohibit contract labour in such work in UTI as the Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970, applies only to an establishment, where or more contract workers are engaged and in none of UTI buildings, this limit has been exceeded.

(8) The Sub-Committee's report is that there are 494 warehouses under the Warehousing Corporation of India employing above 10,000 persons. The Report mentions about sweeping, cleaning being done by regular workers in warehouses etc. The only area where contract labour is engaged by CWC is for guarding buildings and that too is only two warehouses out of 494 warehouses. (These two are at the Nhava Sheva Port at Bombay and at Patparganj in Delhi). Apart from these two warehouses which according to the CWC are sensitive in nature and require security through private agencies, the other areas where private security guards are engaged are "container freight stations" and "Import export Air Cargo Warehouses" dealing with imported goods. The contract labour engaged as security guards are paid Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- p.m. plus other service benefits like PF, Bonus, ESIC coverage etc. In view of the above, the engagement of contract about by the Central Warehousing Corporation is extremely marginal and even where it is engaged, the wages and other service conditions are such that there is no scope for exploitation of labour. In the context, contract labour in security of buildings of the Central Warehousing Corporation need not be prohibited. But in this case also there may be some scope to invoke Rule 25(2)(v) ibid and we may write to the Ministry etc., to enforce the Rules.

"in this contract, the workman work only general shift from 8.15 a.m. to 4.15 p.m. when the Engineering repair centre works".

There is no indication in the "Report" as to the frequency of deployment of such workmen in general shifts. By mentioning that contract workers are employed only when the Jet Engineering repair centre works, the Sub-Committee has tacitly admitted that this work of effluent cleaning is not of a continuous nature. The Ministry of Civil Aviation have indicated that the utilisation of contract labour in the effluent treatment plant for removal of muck etc., is linked up with actual usage of electro-plating shop and chemical cleaning shop of the Jet Engineering Repair Centre. As these facilities are not operated on a continuous basis, the Ministry has observed that the Sub-Committee has come to an erroneous conclusions that the work of cleaning etc. of effluents is of a perennial nature, which, in fact, it is not.

(b) In short, the important ingredient of Section 10 of the Act that the work is "of perennial nature and is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen" is not present in the maintenance of the effluent treatment plant of the Jet Engineering Repair Centre of M/s. IA at New Delhi. In view of the have, I do not recommend prohibition of contract labour in the above operation.

9. In this paragraph, I propose to deal with the fourth and the fifth items of work (i.e., engagement of contract labour in canteens and for cabin catering cleaning of M/s. AI). The Sub-Committee have observed that M/s. AI are required by law to maintain canteens where snacks and food items are sold to workmen etc. These canteens prepare food items and sell them at prices fixed by M/s. AI from time to time. The work is of a continuous character. Hence the Sub-Committee have recommended prohibition of contract labour in canteens. Similarly for cabin catering cleaners, the Sub-Committee have observed that contract labour are engaged for cleaning cabin trays with soap and water and since the work is of a continuous character justifying engagement of whole time workers, employment of contract labour in this item of work should also be prohibited.