Holding

The Court held that abolition of contract labour is a matter for the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and that the Court cannot decide the issue of similarity of work, which must be referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner.

Summary

The BHEL Workers' Association and other petitioners alleged that about a thousand contract labourers in the BHEL plant at Hardwar were paid lower wages and denied the same conditions of service as directly employed workers, seeking a declaration under Article 32 that the contract labour system was illegal and that they were de facto employees entitled to equal pay. The respondents argued that the petitioners could have used remedies under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Minimum Wages Act and the Equal Remuneration Act, and that abolition of contract labour is a matter for the Central Government under section 10 of the Act. The Court held that the Act does not provide for total abolition of contract labour, that the power to prohibit it in any process lies with the Central Government, and that the question of whether the work performed by contract labour is the same or similar to that of direct employees must be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner under the Central Rules. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions but directed the Central Government to consider prohibition under section 10 and the Chief Labour Commissioner to examine the nature of the work.

Issues considered

The Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 to declare the contract labour system illegal in a public sector undertaking
Whether contract labourers are entitled to the same wages and conditions as directly employed workers
Whether the Court can decide, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, if the work performed by contract labour is the same or similar to that of direct employees
Whether the Court can direct the Central Government to prohibit contract labour under section 10 of the Act

Legislation cited

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970s. 10, s. 25, s. 2(e), s. 2(g)
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971s. Rule 25, s. Rule 25(ii)(v)(a), s. Rule 25(ii)(v)(b)
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Subjects

contract labourpublic sector undertakingequal payArticle 32abolitioncentral governmentlabour lawwage discriminationjurisdictionChief Labour Commissioner

Judgment

611
A

B.H.E.L. WORKERS' ASSOCIATION
HARDWAR & ORS., ETC. ETC. B

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS., ETC. ETC.
c
January 18, 1985

[0. (HINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.)

Contract Labour (Regula/ion and Abolition) Act 1910. Section 10 anii D
Contract Labour (Regular ion and Abolition) Centr<il Rules 1971, Rule 25.

Public.Sector Undcrtaking-'con,tract labour' engagement of by contractors
-"Claim of'contract / ... hour' ofperfarmance of san1e work as workers 'directly
en1ployed' by undertaking b1.f receiving lesser Wages- Whether court enti t!ed to
issue declaration :1bolishing 'contract fabo.ur' systen1.
E
Constitution of India 1950, Article 32.

En1pluyment of con~ract labour' in public sector undertaking-Compe~
. tency of court to enquire into quesi h•n and issue declaration abolishing 'contract
labour' system.

The petitioner·union contended in the writ petitions to this Court that out F
of the 16,000. and odd workers working within the premises of therespondent-
\ undertaking as many as a thousand workers were treated as 'contract labour• and
l placed- under the control 'and at-the mercy of contractors and that though they
did the same work as the workers· directly employed by the undertaking, they were
not paid the same wages not were their conditions· of service the same. It was
further alleged that the management pa)'> to •he contractors and in turn the con-
tractrrs pay them their salary after deducting substantial commission, l.nd that G
the wages received by them bear no cornpatison with the wages paid to those
direct,Jy employed by the undertaking:. In view of these circumstances it was
alleged that the rights of these workers were infringed under Articles 14 and 19(1)
(0 and a declaration was sought from the Court, that the system of contract.
labour prevalent in the respondent-undertaking was illegal, that the 'contract
labour' employees were direct employees of the respondent-undertaking and
entitled to equal pay as the workmen directly employed, H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '(1985} 2 S.C. R
A The respondent-undertaking opposed the writ petitions and contended that
if the petitioners had any genuine grievance they could have availed themselves
of the rights sec~ed to them under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboli-
tion) Act, 1970 Minimum \Vages Act, 19-t&. Equal Remuneration Act 1976 etc.•
for ventilation their grievances and seeking appropriate relief, instead of invoking
Article 32. It was further contended• .that certain jobs .though required to be done
within the plant area could be more cOnveniently and efficiently done on a job--con-
B
tract basis by contr3ctors. and . this was _actually :due to the incorporation of new
techriology for expansion of production programme with foreign co11aboration.
The jobs themselves were entrusted to contractors and it was not appropriate 10
say that the contractors merely supplied the labour, they were required to do the •
total job and payment was made on the basis of the quantum of wo"rk involved
and not on the b~si~ of.the worke~s- employed by the. contractor.
c Dismissing the writ petitions,

HELD: 1. The Co.ntract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 19i0
does not provide for the total abolition of contract Jabour, but only for its aboli-
tion in certain circumstances,. and for the: regulation of the employment of con-
tract Jabour in certain establishments. The 'Act is not confined to private employers
D· only_..,The definitions of 'establishment• section 2(e),. and 'principal employc.r'
section 2(g)~ expressly include t1'e Government or any of its departments.
. [616F, 617]

. 2. No invidious distinction can be made against contract Jabour. Contract
Jabour is entitled to the same wages, holidays. hours of work. and conditions of
service as are app1iCable to workmeO. 'directly employed by the principal employer
or the establishment on the s3.ri:ie .or similar kind ·or
work. They are entitled to
recover their wages and their conditions of service in the same manner as workers
E employed by the principal employer under the appropriate. Industrial and
'
1_

Labour Laws. If there is any dispute with regard to the type of work. the
dispute has to be decided by th' Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). [620A-C]

3. Parliament has ~ot abo1ished contract labour .but has pfOvided for its.
abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under sec. 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970. It is not ·for the court to
F enquire into-the .question 1 and to ·decide whether :the employment. of contract
labour .in any process; operation or· other i work in any, establishment should be
abolished or-not. This is a·mJ.tter fOr the decision of the Government after consi·
dedng the matters required to be considered undec sec. 10 of the Acto l620C·D}.

•· 4: \Vhether the work dOne by.the Contract Labour is. the same or similar
work a! that done by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of
any establishment is a matter to be decided by· the, Chie(:·Labour Commissioner
G under the proviso to Rule: 25(ii) 1v) (a) .of the Contract Labour) (Regulation and
Abo!i6on) Centra!Rules, 1971. [6400-E) -· ' ·,
·.,.
In the instant case, from the allegations·and ·counter-allegations made in
the writ petition it is not possible in an application under ·Arti 32 to embark into
an enquitf whether the thousand and odd workmen working in various czpacities
ll. ~nd en~<\-ged in CQq1tiradoys:· activities ·do-· work-. identical. witb work done by
..
BHEL WORKERS~-ASSOCIATION J'.1 UNION 613'
A
the workmen directly employed by the BHEL and .whether for -that ieason~ they··
'-t... should be treated not as contract labour- but as difect employees ·of the under- -
takings.. There are other forums created under, statutes designed for decid ng
such question.

5. A· direction would issue to the Central Government ~to consider'
whether the employment of Contract Labo'ur should not be proh'bited under sec~
10 of the Act in any processs, operation or other work of the public undertaking:
~ [620EI
I I •
6. There will also. be a, direction· to the Chief Labour Commissioner to
~ enquire into the questivn whether the work done by_ the workmen employed by
the contractors is the same type or··work as that· done· by the· workmen d rect1y'
• employed by the principal employer in the undertakingJ [620E•F]
c •
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 7982, 9874
and 9H9 of 1983
(Unaer articlei32 of the Constitution of India)

R.K. Garg, D.K, Garg and: A.K. Goer for the 1 Petitioners..

G.L. Sanghi, Kapil Sibal, V.C. Mahajan. Miss Meera Mathur,
S, Sukumaran, O.C•. Mathur, . D.N, Mishra, Ashok. Grover,_ C.K.·
Mahajqn, l.S. Goel,.R.N. Poddar. and C.V. Subba -Rao the: Res- for
pondents... · · ·
E-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

·• CliINNAPPA REDDY, J; These three Writ Petitions Art:undfr32'
of the COnstit.ution of India appear to us to be entirely ·mis.conceived.
In. Writ Petition.No. 7982.of 1983 ·and ·Writ Petition· No. 9874 of'
1983, the respective petitioners are the BHEL' Workers Association; F
Hard war and .others. and. Bharat Heavy Electricals Karamchari'
Sangh, Ranipur, Hard war. They allege that out of the 16,000 imd odd'·
• workers worki~g _within the premises of the BHEL factory at 'Ha~d-
1
,._..... war, as many_ as a thousand workers are treated as. 'contract labour'
and placed under the control and at the mer~y of contractors. Though'.
. they.do the sam> work as the workers directly emplciyed "bjr .the.
BHEL, they are not paid .the same wages nor are their~ conditions: of· G
service the same. They.allegethat the management.pays. their. salary
to the contractors and in.turn .the contractors pay them their salary
aftbr deducting .substantial commission. The wages received by. them
bear no comparison with. the .wages paid to those directly employed
A. by. the BHEL. They.say.that they work. within the. premises of the.
BHEL in different 'departments under the direct supervision and con-
trol of the Chargemen, Foremen and Engineers of· the llHEL:. Their Hr

'
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R.
A working hours are as stipulated by the BHEL. They work on the
machines of the BHEL and they are essentially part of the organi·
t
sation involved in the production process of manufacture carried on
by the BHEL. They are entitled to be declared as regular employees
of the BHEL and further entitled to the same scales of pay as the
B workers of the BHEL. They allege that their rights under Art. 14 and
19 (i) (f) are infringed. It is claimed that whenever a demand is made
by them, they are thrown out of emploment. They want a declaration
from this Court that the system of contract Jabour is illegal, that they
are direct employees of the BHEL and that they are entitled to equal
pay as the workmen of the BHEL.
c
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BHEL by Shri P.C.
Rao, Deputy General Manager, who while denying the allegations
made in the petition, has pointed out that if the petitioners had any ·
genuine grievance, they shbuld have availed themselves of the rights
secured to them under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboli- - ..,,
D
lion) Act, Minimum Wages Act, Equal Remuneration Act, etc, for
ventilating their grievances and seeking appropriate relief instead of
rushing to this Court under Act. 32 of the Constitution. It is pointed
out in the counter-affidavit that certain jobs though required to be
done within the plant area can be more conveniently and efficiently
E done on a job contract basis by contractors. This is particularly so in
regard to the incorporation of new technology for expansion of pro- (
duction programme,called the LSTG programme with foreign colla-
boraiion. The jobs t{Jemselves are entrusted to the contractors and it •
is not true to say th,'!! the contractors .merely supply labour. They are
required to do the total job and payment is made on the basis of the
quantum of the work involved and not on the basis of the number
F of workers employed by the contractor. It is further pointed out that
contract lal>our on the basis of job contracts is usually employed In
connection with construction, erection and commissioning activities
which are purely of a temporary nature, transportation including load; "-- 0 ·
Ing and unloading from wagons, trucks, trailers, tractors etc. as well as
internal transport, jungle clearance, weed removal and other horticul-
G tural activities. Work in connection with cleaning and upkeep of
approach roads and plant areas and work relating to modernisation •
and rationalisation, such as shifting of equipment, etc. is also done
on a job contract basis. These activities require varying number of
workers at different times and it 'is considered, as a matter of policy,
that the works are better done by job contractors than by the BHEL .· J.
itself which has to concern itself primarily with the manµfacture Of
H turbipes, etc.
. BHEL WORKERS' ~SSN••• UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 61 s
A
--.. It is clear from the allegations and counter-allegations that it is
uot possible for this Court in an application under Art 32 of the
Constitution to embark into an enquiry whether these thousand and
odd workmen working in various capacities and engaged in multi-
. farious activities do work identical with work done by the workmen
directly employed by the BHEL and whether for that reason they B
.; should be treated not as contract labour but as direct employees of
the BHEL ? There •are other forums created under other statutes
' d~signed for deciding such and like questions. Perhaps realising and
futility of asking us to compare the nature of the work done by those
directly employed by the B HEL and those employed by con-
tractors, the learned counsel chose to advance the extreme argument c
that the court must declare a total ban on the employment of contract
Jabour by public sector undertakings. It was argued that the employ-
ment of contract labour has been frowned upon by various committees
_ appointed by the Government and Parliament itself thought that the
"' employment of contract labour was undesirable and therefore, enacted D'
the Contract Labour !Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. It was
submitted that in order to give effect the intention of Parliament as
well as the Directive Principles of State Policy, the court should
declare illegal the employment of contract labour by the State or by
any public sector undertaking which for the purposes of Art. 12 of the
Constitution is the State. In other words, the counsel wants this Court E
• by its writ to abolish the employment of contract labour by the State
,. and by all public sector undertakings. We are afraid that would be
nothing but the exercise of legislative activity with which function the
Court is not entrusted by the Constitution.

It is true that for a Jong time, the maleficent nature of the sys-
tem of contract labour and the destructive results which flow from it F
had been noticed by various committees appointed by the Government
including the Planning Commission and that as a result of the
reports and the discussions etc. that took place, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was passed. According to the
Statement of Objects and Reasons :-
G
"The system of employment of contract labour lends
itself to .various abuses. The question of its abolition has
been under the consideration of Government for a Jong
time In the second~five year plan, the. Planning Com-
mission made certain recommendations, namely, undertaking
9f studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of ontract
7 H
616 SIJP1U!MI! eomr tu!POJl.TS (1985) 1 s.c.2.
./
A labour, progressive abolition of system and improvement of
service, conditions of contract labour. wbere. the ·abolition
was not possible. The matter was discussed at various. meet-
. ings of Tripartite Committees ..at which the· State Govern-
B ments" were .also represented and general consensus of
opinion was that the system sheuld be abolished wherever
possible or practicable and that in cases where this system
could not be abolished altogether, the working conditions
· of contract 'labour should be regulated so as to .. ~nsure pay-
· ... ment of wages and provision of essential amenities. •
c
.. 2. The prop~sed Bill aims at abolition of conlr~ct
. labour in respect ~f such categories as may be .notified by
appropriate Government in the light of certain criteria that
· . have bCen laid down, and at regulating tlie service conditions
. ·or contract labour where abolition is not possible. The Bill
D
provides for the.setting up of Advisory Boards of a tripartite
character, representing various. interests,. to" advise _Central
and State Governments in administering the legislation a·nd
·registration of establishments and contractors. Under the .
Scheme of the Bill, the provision and maintenance of certain
basic weifare amenities for contract labour, lik~ . drinking
water 'and first-aid facilities, and in 'certain cases rest-ronms
E .. ·arid canteens, have been made obligatory. Provisions have I
also been made to guard against details· in the matter of · . '
wagC Payment". ~ ,.
' .
~ . . . .
The long title of the Act describes it as "an Act to . regulate the
employment of contract labour in certain establishments and. to pro-
vide for its abolition 'in certain circumstances and for matters con-
F nected therewith." As the long title itself indicates the ·Act doeS not
provide for the iota! abolition of contract· labour, but only for its
abolition iii certain· circumstances;· and for the regulation· of the .
employment of contract labour in certain establisbments.fSection I (4l .
_applies to all establishments in . which 20 or more workmen are
employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months
G as contract labour and to every contractor who employs or bas
employed on any day of the preceding 12 months 10 or. more work-
, men.· The Act does not apply to .. establishments in which work of an
intermittent or casual nature alone is performed. Section 2 (e) defmes
an establishment as meaning : (l) any ollke or department of the
H Government or local authority; or (ii) any place where any industry,
trade, business, manufacture or occupation is· carried on. Section 2
(g) defines "principal emyloyer" as meaning :
'.'f{i)'in. tel!rtion ;to any; office; 'Or department of the
-G&"Yemment or a locaJiauthotity, the head of• that ·office or
· departmeflt-or such <lrner d:fficer •as· ibe Govemment'or>the
localauthority,as the case may ·be, may specify in· this
behalf,
'B
(ii)' in ·it f!!Ctory; the owner or occupier of the factory
and where a ·person' has been named as the· manager of the
· f~ttotyunder'the Fiictorres Att,·1948, !be perron'so' named,
•
-(iii) in a.mine, tbe-.owner or-.agent of the mine and
where a person ·hru> been named as the manajer· of the mine, c
the ,person se> ,named,

(iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible
,,,("' . for the supervision' and. t'oilti'ot or ihe-t!it«blishtilent."

The definitions of 'establishment' and 'principal employer'
clearly'do not exclutle but•onthe "<fther -mrid expressly include the D
Government or any of its·departtrtentund!tlleAct ·applied to them
too. The Act is not confined to private employers only. Section 2 (c)
) defines a contractor, in relation to• an, establishment, as meaning 'a
. person who undertakes to proquceagiven resultfor,.\h.e.establishment
-Other than a m,r~ supply•of;gGoosQr'1l,rticles,of·ma11µfacture to such
E
estahlishment, through oonllatt claboor ·e< who -s11pplied .c9ntract
-labour for any work of,the•ejo(ablishment and includes a sub cmitrac·
r,tor. Secti@.ns 3 and 4 provide f<u the constitution of Gentral and
·State A<!lvise>IY. Boards.! Section 7 provides for. the registration of an
· establishment.<Seetion 8 ,provides for Aihe revocation of ~gi&tration
• -llllCI 9tc. f) provides for Ute ..effect of oon-r~11istration. Section 10 ·
. 'Which is draportant pmvides for and. \m&bles the prohibition of F .
employment of 0011tra~t labour in al)y processes, · i;>perations or
,.;therwork.,employ<W!llt w .any .establishment. Section 10 may be
·usefully.extracted :
G
1
·' . "'(!) 'Notwitbsfllnding1mythlng cdt\tained •in this · Act,
'the ·appr6ptiate·Governmen't may, after•llom111!1ation "with
tbe'Centtal'~rd d·r,'11s ·the ·case ·may 1b'e, a· State 'Biard,·
- prtihibit,'ty'nodticatlon' In· th'e' Oil'lelal Baittte; emplo)'mcl1t ·
of colltfact labo'O'.r'in'anfp'roceSS,"aperatio'n ·or•otber 'l'IOTk
in any est!blislil'llent. ·• · l1
/

618 . ~!Jl'RllMB COURT .REPORTS (1985] 2 S.C.R •
A
(2) Before i1suiog any notitication under sub-section (I)
in ~lation to an· est11hlishment,., the appropriate Govern- ;r-
ment:shall have regar4 to the conditions of work and bene-
fits provided for the <:ontractl labour in that establishment
and other relevant factors, such as-

(a) wheth~r the process, operation or other work .
is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, ' \
business, ma1iµfacture or occupation t~at is carried on
in the establishment ; "' •
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say,
c it is or sufficient durafron having regard to the nature of
industry, trade, business, manufacture or -Occupation
carried on in that establishment ;

(cl whether it is done ordinarily through regular '°"-..,
workmen in that establishment or an establishment r
D similar thereto ;,

(d) whether.it is sufficient to employ considerable
number of whole-time workmen,"

Section 12 provides for the licensing of contractors. Sections 13, (
E 14 and 15 provide for the grant of licences, revocation, suspension
and amendment of licences and a}>peal. Sections 16 to 21 make detail-
ed' provision for the welfare.and health of contract labour. Section
20 iii partieillat provides that if any amenity required to be provided
for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment
is not provid.,. by the contractor within the prescribed time such
amen"ity shall be provided by· the principal employer. Section 21
F (
makes the contractor responsible for payment of wages to each wor-
ker employed by him as !!>On tract labour but further prescribes that
t'IH(principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authori-
sed by him to be present at'tho time of disbursement of wages by the
contractor, Sections 22 to 27 provide for penalities and procedure.
Section 28 provides for the appointment of inspecting staff. Section .
G 30 makes the provisions ()f the Act effective notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contaiq~d in,any ot,~C\r law or in the terms of
a0y aj)'eemw,t:or cQntract .of service or :Illy standing orders applicable
to th.e establishment. H, howevei:, saves to .the contract labour any
favourable benefits that the contract labour may be entitled· to under
H the agreement, contract of service or stal)ding orders. Section 35
BHEL WORKERS' ASSN. v. UNION (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 619

invests the appropriate Government with power to make rules for A
carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rules made by the Central
Government are required to be laid before each House of Parliament
for a total period of 30 days. In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 35 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
l 970, the Central Government has made the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 19il. Chapter II of the
rules relates to matters pertaining to the Central Advisory Contract B
Labour Board while Chapter Ill of the Rules deals with registration
• of establishments and licensing of contractors. Rule 25 prescribes
the forms terms and conditions of licence. Rule 25 (ii) (iv) prescribes
that it shall be the condition of every licence that the rates of wages
shall not be less than the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 for such employment where applicable, and where the rates c
have been fixed by agreement, settlement or award, not less than the
rates so fixed. Rule 25 (ii) (v) (a) prescribes that it shall be the condi-
tion of every licence that-

"(v) (a) in ca,es where the workmen employed by the
contractor perform the same or similar kind or work as the
workmen directly employed by the principal employer of D
the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work
and other conditions of service of the workmen of the con-
tractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen
' directly employed by the principal employer of the establish-
ment on the same or similar kind of work : ·
E
Provided that i_n the case of any disagreement with
regard to the type of work the same shall be decided by the
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) whose decision shall
be final. "
' Similarly Rule 25 (ii) (v) (b) provides that in other cases the wage F
rates, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service of the work-
men of the contractor shall be such as may be specified in this behalf
by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). While determining the
wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service
nnder Rule 25 (ii} (v) (b) the Chief Labour Commissioner is required
G
to have regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other
conditions of service obtaining in similar employments. Tl\ere is no
dispute before us that the Payment of Wages Act applies as much to
contract labour as to labour directly employed by the principal.
employer of the establishment.
H
·SUl'lll!MB COUR.1' REPORTS {!985] 2 s.c.R.
A
'Thus·we see that· no invidious distinction can be made against
·contract labour. 'OJntracti!l'.bour·is entitled to the same wages, holi-
·days;·hours of work and coriditions of service as are ·applicable to
·workmen ·directly employed by the principal employer of the establi-
B •shment ·on·'the ·same or similar kind ·Of ·work. 'They are entitled to
-recover their wages and their conditions of.service in·the same man-
-ner-as•workers- employed by the' principal employer tinder the· appro-
•priate Indastrial and Labour Lllws. If there is any· di!pute with regard
•tttthe't)'Pe of work, the dispute has to be decided by the Chief
· bbon!' Commissioner (Central). It is clear that Parliament has not
c '1tbolished contract labour· as such but has provided : for its abolition
'·by•t'lle Central Government in appropriate cases•under sec. 10 of the
'€ontract11abour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is not for
<the court fo·enquire into the question and ·to decide whether the
.•employment of contract labour in any process, -Operation or other
·'WOrk in any e!!ta:blishment ·should be abolished or not. This is a
D
matter for the decision of the Government •afwr considering •the
matters required to be considered under sec. 10 of the Act. Similarly
the question whether the work done by Contract labour is the same
or similar work as that done by the workmen directly employed by
the. principal employer of any establishment is· a matter to be decided
bylhe Chief Lltbour Commissioner under the proviso to Rule 25 (ii)
E (v)(a). In these circumstances, we have ·no option but to dismiss
{
both 'tb'.e writ petitions but with a direction to the Central Govern-
ment to consider whether the employment of contract labour should
not be prohibited under sec. 10 of the Act in any process, operation
or other work of the BHEL, Hard war. There will also be a direction
to the Chief Labour Commissioner to enquire into the question whe-
ther .tbe work done by the workmen employed by the contractors is
F the same type of work as that done by the workmen directly employed
by the principal employer in the BHEL, Hardwar.
'
In ·Writ Petition No. 9249 of 1983. the, petitioners are the
.employees.of.Lal Jhanda National Fertilizer Limited Mazdoor Union
Panipat ...They pray for similaneliefs against the National ·Fertilizer
G ..Limited, Panipat.as in the BHEL Cl\Sll •. This writ petition is also
.dismis&ed. subject to similar directions to the State of Haryana and
.the appropriate authority in the State of Haryana as' those issued in
. the:BHEL.case.

N.V.K. 'Petitions 'dismissed.