Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is relevant to mention here that almost on identical facts situation, another reference was also made, being Reference No. 100 of 1991. The same was also referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. l, Dhanbad under Section 10(1)(d)(2A) of the I.D. Act. Both the references were taken up together and similarly answered. The instant case is, however, not concerned with Reference No. 100 of 1991 and as such, discussion of the said reference case has been avoided.

16. The conclusion of the Tribunal is mainly based on the grounds; that i. The Management of BCCL has not filed any licence of the petty contractors to show that they were licensee under Section 12 of the CLRA Act.

iii. The concerned workmen were engaged by M/s. Ravi & Company, who were said to be licensee under Section 12 of the CLRA Act, but neither the licence of the relevant period of the said contractor has been produced nor any registration certificate, issued under the CLRA Act, has been produced by the management of BCCL In absence of production of the licence or the registration certification, as required under the CLRA Act, contract workers shall be deemed to be the employees of the Principal Employer, as was held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary, Hariyana Steel Electricity Board (Supra) and Air India Statutory Corporation (Supra) and in that view the concerned workmen are entitled for regularisation.
89. In the light of the above discussion we are unable to perceive in Section 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the establishment concerned on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) prohibiting employment of contract labour in a given establishment.

XX XX XX XX 1O5. The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature, we ' have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service of the contract labour and authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our view, provides no ground for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10. Admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope? of interpretative legislation and as such, clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of abolition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.

XX XX XX XX

120. We hove also perused all the Rules and forms prescribed thereunder. It is clear that at various stages there is involvement of the principal employer. On an exhaustive consideration of the provisions of the CLRA Act we have held above that neither they contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the Act on issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, a fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to exist from the Rules and the forms made thereunder.