Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In connection with its business, the appellant employs about 700 permanent workmen at its factory in Wadala,, Bombay. According to the appellant, it has been employing for more than 30 years a contractor for loading, unloading, weighing and stacking materials and bags and feeding the hoppers. It may be mentioned at this Stage that the workmen had raised a dispute under demand No. 1 regarding the abolition of the contract system of employing labour in the two departments of the appellant, namely, (i) in the canteen section, and

The full particulars regarding the type of work involved in the above four items were given. All these items of work were of an intermittent and irregular nature. The loading and unloading in wagons and trucks was not a regular affair but dependent on the availability of railway wagons and trucks. The feeding of cakes into hoppers and filling up deoiled cakes were also of an irregular and intermittent nature. In view of these circumstances, it was not possible to employ permanent workmen to carry out the said items of work. Further, legislation regarding the regulation and abolition of contract labour was being contemplated by the Central Government and the State of Maharashtra. Various charts relating to the approximate number of workmen employed, their hours of work as well as the days on which they were employed for these items of work by the contractor, were also given. In view of the peculiar type of these items of work, the demand of the Union for abolition of contract labour was not justified. The Industrial Tribunal considered the demand under two heads : (i) the abolition of contract labour, and (ii) treating the workmen employed by the contractor as regular employees of the Company and giving them all the benefits of service conditions which the permanent employees were entitled to.
The Union, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the charts furnished by The appellant and the contractor and pleaded that the work was of a continuous and perennial nature, which could be very efficiently discharged by the permanent employees of the appellant Company. The Union also referred to the practice obtaining in certain other companies doing similar business in the area and pointed out that the type of work that was being done by the appellant through a contractor was being done in those concerns by their permanent workmen.

The Union also placed very strong reliance on this document. Ex. C9 in support of its contention that the work of loading and unloading is of a permanent nature and that it could be done by the permanent employees of the Company. The Industrial Tribunal accepted this contention of the Union and ultimately held that even in respect of this item of work, the contract labour should be abolished. It must also be pointed out that the Industrial Tribunal has referred to two enactments : (1) passed by the Parliament and (2) by the Maharashtra State Legislature, to which we will refer later. It is the view of the Industrial Tribunal that these two enactments also support its view that the contract labour should be abolished as far as possible. Ultimately, the Industrial Tribunal directed the appellant not to engage any labourer through a contractor for the work of loading and unloading also with effect from the date after the termination of the present contract between the employer and the contractor, that is, after May 1, 1971. Mr. G. B. Pai, has very strenuously attacked this finding of the Industrial Tribunal. Learned Counsel raised three contentions : (1) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction, lo consider the question of abolition of contract labour in view of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, (Act 37 of 1970) (hereinafter to be referred as the Central Act) and The Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, (Act 30 of 1969) (hereinafter to be referred as the State Act); (2) even on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court, the direction to abolish contract labour in respect of loading and unloading is erroneous in law, and (3) the finding that contract labour should be abolished in this regard is opposed to the evidence and the practice obtaining in other industries in the same area. Before we deal with the contention regarding jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal based upon the Central Act and Maha- rashtra Act, we will refer to the principles laid down by this Court in considering the question of abolition of contract labour which is the subject of the second contention of Mr. Pai. According to the learned counsel, the principles laid down by this Court have been ignored when the Industrial Tribunal directed abolition of contract labour regarding loading and unloading. There has been. a consistent demand by the labour for abolishing the system of contract labour and that has given rise to certain industrial adjudications, the correctness of which has corn,-- up for consideration before this Court. In The Standard-Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen and others(1) two questions arose, namely, (1) whether a dispute raised by the permanent workmen regarding abolition of contract labour is an industrial dispute under s. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and (2) whether the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal abolishing the contract system was justified. We are not concerned with the first aspect, referred to above, in the case before us. Regarding the second aspect, the Industrial Tribunal had in that case abolished the contract system obtaining in the particular establishment. This Court after refering to the recommendations of the Royal Commissions on Labour, as well as the opinion expressed by several Labour Inquiry Committees appointed in different States, has expressed the opinion that in a given case the Industrial Tribunal should nest its decision not merely on theoretical or abstract objections to contract labour but also on the terms and conditions on which contract labour is, employed and the grievance made by the employees in respect thereof. In that case this Court further held that the contract labour was doing an itself of work which was incidental to the manufacturing process, which was carried on by the company and that type of work was necessary and also of a perennial nature which had to be done every day. It was also noted I that such type of work was generally done by the workmen in other industries in the area by the regular employees of the employer. In view of all these circumstances it was held by this Court that there should be no difficulty in having the said type of work getting done by regular workmen of the employer. It was also emphasised that the matter would be different if the work was of an intermittent or temporary nature or was so little that it would not be possible to employ full time workmen for the purpose. This Court approved the decision of the Industrial Tribunal abolishing contract labour in the above circumstance. The said principles laid down in the above decision have been referred to with approval and adopted in Shibu Metal Works v. Their Workmen 2 ) . The abolition of contract labour by the Industrial Tribunal Was also approved in. this case. In National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others v. The State of West Bengal and another(3) after quoting with approval (1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 466 (3) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 391.