1996 (11) TMI 454 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Meaning of "appropriate Government" u/s 2(1)(a) of the Act.
2. Correctness of the view in Heavy Engineering case.
3. Entitlement of contract labour to be absorbed upon abolition and the effective date.
4. High Court's power under Article 226 to direct absorption and the effective date.
5. Necessity of reference u/s 10 of the ID Act for adjudication of disputes regarding absorption.
6. Correctness of the view in Dena Nath and Gujarat State Electricity Board's case.
7. Right of workmen for absorption and the remedy for enforcement.

Summary:

1. Meaning of "appropriate Government" u/s 2(1)(a) of the Act:
The term "appropriate Government" as defined u/s 2(1)(a) of the Act was debated. The Supreme Court concluded that the Central Government is the "appropriate Government" from the inception of the Act, making the notification published under Section 10 on December 9, 1976, valid in law.

2. Correctness of the view in Heavy Engineering case:
The Court held that the interpretation in Heavy Engineering case, which narrowly construed the phrase "appropriate Government" on common law principles, is inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of the Constitution. The Court overruled the view taken in Heavy Engineering case.

3. Entitlement of contract labour to be absorbed upon abolition and the effective date:
The Court held that upon abolition of the contract labour system by notification u/s 10(1), the workmen are entitled to be absorbed as regular employees. The effective date for such absorption should be the date of abolition, i.e., December 9, 1976.

4. High Court's power under Article 226 to direct absorption and the effective date:
The High Court has the power under Article 226 to direct the absorption of contract labour upon abolition of the contract labour system. The Court directed that the workmen should be absorbed from the date of abolition, i.e., December 9, 1976.

5. Necessity of reference u/s 10 of the ID Act for adjudication of disputes regarding absorption:
The Court held that it is not necessary to make a reference u/s 10 of the ID Act for adjudication of disputes regarding the absorption of contract labour. The High Court can directly enforce the notification under Article 226.

6. Correctness of the view in Dena Nath and Gujarat State Electricity Board's case:
The Court found the view in Dena Nath's case, which held that the High Court cannot direct absorption of contract labour, to be incorrect. The Court also found the methodology suggested in Gujarat Electricity Board's case to be unworkable and incongruous.

7. Right of workmen for absorption and the remedy for enforcement:
The Court affirmed that workmen have a right to be absorbed upon the abolition of the contract labour system. The appropriate remedy is for the High Court to enforce this right under Article 226 by directing the absorption of such workmen as regular employees.

← Previous Next →