1974 (3) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Section 28 of the Act was challenged as conferring arbitrary and unguided power and, therefore violative of Articles 14 and 15 - Held that - Petition dismissed. Section 28 of the Act confers power on the Government to appoint persons as it thinks fit to be the inspectors for the purposes of the Act and such inspector shall have power to enter at all reasonable hours the premises or place where contract labour is employed for the purpose of examining any register or record or notice and examine any person and seize, or take copies of documents mentioned therein. When they have reasons to believe that an offence has been committed, they can seize or take copies. This point was taken by the Intervener. An. intervener cannot raise points which are not canvassed by the petitioners in the pleadings. For these reasons, the contentions of the petitioners fail. The petitions are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of "contractor" under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
2. Constitutionality of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
3. Reasonableness and practicality of specific provisions of the Act and Rules.
4. Validity of the forfeiture of security deposit under the Act.
5. Constitutionality of Section 34 and Section 28 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Scope of "Contractor" under the Act:
The petitioners contended that they are not contractors within the definition of the Act, arguing that their work is not part of the principal employer's work nor is it done on the premises of the principal employer. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the petitioners are contractors who undertake to produce a given result for the establishment through contract labour. The Court emphasized that the construction work, even if done away from the principal employer's premises, is still considered the work of the establishment. The Act aims to prevent exploitation of contract labour and improve working conditions, thus applying to the petitioners' activities.

2. Constitutionality of the Act and the Rules:
The petitioners argued that the Act and the Rules impose unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). The Court found no unreasonableness in the Act applying to pending contracts, noting that the legislative measure was anticipated since 1967 and passed in 1970. The Act focuses on contract labour, not the contract itself, and aims to ensure minimum labour welfare, which is a reasonable legislative objective.

3. Reasonableness and Practicality of Specific Provisions:
The petitioners challenged various provisions, such as those requiring canteens, rest rooms, and other facilities, as impractical and expensive. The Court held these provisions to be reasonable and practicable, emphasizing that they are essential for the dignity of human labour. The Court also noted that the provisions are social welfare measures and that the legislature, not the Court, determines the standards of reasonableness.

4. Validity of the Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The petitioners argued that the security deposit requirement and its forfeiture are arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court upheld the provisions, stating that the forfeiture is a departmental penalty for non-compliance with the conditions of the licence. The rate of Rs. 30 per workman is not arbitrary and is related to the classification of contractors based on the number of workmen employed. The forfeiture serves as a penalty for ensuring compliance and is not inconsistent with the Act.

5. Constitutionality of Section 34 and Section 28:
The petitioners challenged Section 34 as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments, stating that Section 34 does not confer finality or allow alteration of the Act's provisions, and is meant for administrative implementation. Section 28, which confers powers on inspectors, was challenged by an intervener, but the Court dismissed this challenge, noting that interveners cannot raise new points not canvassed by the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity and constitutionality of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Rules made thereunder. The provisions for regulating and improving the conditions of contract labour were deemed reasonable and necessary for social welfare. The forfeiture of security deposits and the powers conferred under Sections 34 and 28 were also upheld as constitutionally valid.