9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "appropriate Government" u/s 2(1)(a) of the CLRA Act. 2. Validity of the Central Government notification dated December 9, 1976, u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act. 3. Automatic absorption of contract labour upon issuance of a prohibition notification u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act. Summary: Issue 1: Definition of "appropriate Government" u/s 2(1)(a) of the CLRA Act The court examined the true and correct import of the expression "appropriate Government" as defined in the CLRA Act. The court held that before January 28, 1986, the determination of the appropriate Government depended on whether the industry was carried out by or under the authority of the Central Government or pertained to specified controlled industries. After January 28, 1986, the definition aligned with the Industrial Disputes Act, making the Central Government the appropriate Government for Central Government undertakings. The court concluded that the Central Government is the appropriate Government for Central Government companies/undertakings if the industry is carried out under its authority. Issue 2: Validity of the Central Government notification dated December 9, 1976, u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act The court scrutinized the notification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976, prohibiting employment of contract labour for specific tasks. It held that the notification did not comply with the requirements of Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which necessitates consultation with the Central Advisory Board and consideration of specific factors. Consequently, the notification was quashed prospectively from the date of the judgment. Issue 3: Automatic absorption of contract labour upon issuance of a prohibition notification u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act The court examined whether automatic absorption of contract labour is implied in Section 10 of the CLRA Act. It concluded that neither Section 10 nor any other provision in the Act provides for automatic absorption of contract labour upon the issuance of a prohibition notification. The principal employer cannot be mandated to absorb contract labour as regular employees. The court overruled the judgment in Air India's case prospectively and declared that any direction for absorption following that judgment shall hold good if it has attained finality and been implemented. The court also outlined that if a contract is found to be genuine and a prohibition notification has been issued, the principal employer should give preference to the erstwhile contract labour in regular employment, subject to suitability and necessary relaxations. Conclusion: The court provided a detailed interpretation of the term "appropriate Government," invalidated the Central Government's notification from 1976 due to procedural non-compliance, and clarified that the CLRA Act does not imply automatic absorption of contract labour upon prohibition of their employment. The court's decision impacts various appeals and transferred cases, directing them to be resolved in light of this judgment.
|
