Holding

The notification is quashed because the Government failed to take into account the Board’s advice and did not consider the material factors required under Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

Summary

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting the use of contract labour for sweeping and scavenging in establishments employing fifty or more workers. Mis. Landt Mc Neil Ltd. challenged the notification, alleging that the State had not effected a proper consultation with the Tamil Nadu State Contract Labour Advisory Board and had not considered the material factors required under Section 10(2)(a)‑(d). The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the statutory procedure had been complied with. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the Board’s minutes and found no substantive advice or material on which the Government could have based its decision. The Court held that mere consultation without taking the Board’s advice into account, and the absence of relevant material, vitiated the notification. Consequently, the notification was quashed, with a direction that the Government may issue a fresh notification after due consideration of the statutory factors.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government complied with the mandatory consultation requirement under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 before issuing the notification.
Whether the Government considered the relevant factors enumerated in Section 10(2)(a)‑(d) of the Act while formulating the notification.

Legislation cited

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970s. 10(1), s. 10(2)(a), s. 10(2)(b), s. 10(2)(c), s. 10(2)(d)

Subjects

Contract labourStatutory consultationSection 10Notification quashingSupreme Court of IndiaTamil Nadu

Judgment

MIS. LANDT MC NEILL TD. ETC. ETC. A

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JANUARY 30, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BA8U AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. 1970-Section 10-
Notijication prohibiting employment of conlracl labour engaged for sweeping
and scavenging in establishmems!factories employing j0 or more workme11-
Cons11l1ation with Board under the Ac! and consideration of relevant materials C
before issuance of notification-Held, on facts, the State Government has not
ejfective~v consulted the Board nor did it considered relevant factors before
-,r issuing the notification.

Respondent-State Government issued a notification under Section 10
(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting D
employment of contract labour engaged for sweeping and scavenging in
establishments/factories employing SO or more workmen. Petitioner-company
filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the notification. The
High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the notification had been
issued by the respondent after fully complying with the prescribed procedure E
under the Act after proper consultation with parties concerned and evaluation
of relevant factors and materials.

In appeals before the Court, the petitioner contended that there had
been no effective consultation with Tamil Nadu State Contract Labour Advisory
~ Board, as required under the Act, by the respondent before issuing the F
notification; that the notification was issued in the absence of relevant
materials on record.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : I. I. Consultation does not mean concurrence. The views of G
Tamil Nadu State Contract Labour Advisory Board are ascertained for the
purpose of assisting the State Government in reaching its conclusion on the
matter one way or the other. After careful perusal of the necessary files and
· other materials leading to the notification, it is not very clear as to how the
Government could have reached the conclusion one way or the other in the H
701
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R.

A absence of any advice by the Board and in the absence of any other material.
The decision of the Government in issuing the notifica.tion under Section
I 0(1) of the Act is thus vitiated because of non-consideration of relevant
materials. The mere fact that several notifications have been issued in relation
to contract labour or that system in sweeping and scavenging has been
B abolished in some other industries may not, by itself, be sufficient to hold
that a common notifications applicable to all industries and establishments
abolishing contract labour in sweeping and scavenging could have been issued
by the Government without necessary material. The Government ought to 'j;..
take into consideration the relevant factors contained in Section 10(2)(a) to
(d) of the Act and thereafter decide the matter. [704-B; 705-E-HI
c 1.2. The impugned notification is quashed. However, it is open to the
Government to issue a fresh notification after due consideration of the matter
in accordance with law. [706-A[

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3748 of
D 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.98 of the Madras High Court
in W.A.No. I 078 of 1998.

With
E
3808/2000, 3809/2000, 1043/2000, 3727/2000 and 5307/2000.

Bharat Sangal, S. Muralidhar. and S. Vallinayangam for the Appellants.

A. Mariarputham, and Ms. Aruna Mathur for Mis. Arputham Aruna &
F Co. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The Government of Tami! Nadu issued a
notification under Section iO(I) of the Contract Labour (Regulation &
G Abolition) Act, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] prohibiting the
employment of contract labour in the process of sweeping and scavenging
in the establishments/factories which are employing 50 or more workmen. This
prohibition is without reference to class of establishment which is involved
of the conditions of work in a pa11icular establishment. Under Section 10 of
the Act the Government is obliged to consult the Tamil Nadu State Contract
H Labour Advisory Board [for short 'the Board'] before issuing a notification
LANDT MC NEIL LTD.''· GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 703

in question. The appella1its contended that there has been no effective A
consultation with the Board inasmuch as the only occasion when this aspect
-r was considered was in the Sub-Committee meeting of the Board. The Minutes
of the meeting made available to the Court disclosed that it recorded the
views of the All India Manufacturers Organisation to the effect that the
sweepers and scavengers work not for more than 2 to 3 hours daily and the
view of the employees' representatives was that sweepers and scavengers are B
working for more than 120 days in a year. No decision as such was made but
_..., it was noted that the Government should take a decision in the matter. The
said notification was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition. The
High Courts, following its earlier decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals limited
v. Government o/Tami/ Nadu and Ors., (1997] 3 LLN 495, dismissed the writ c
petition holding that the notification had been issued after fully complying
with the prescribed procedure under Section 10 of the Act to prohibit
employment of contract labour after proper consultation with all relevant
-·-f
parties and evaluation of all relevant factors and materials by the State
Government. Following this aforesaid decision, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner also stood dismissed. Hence these appeals. D

The Division Bench of the High Court in the course of its order noticed
that apart from Sub-Committee report, to which reference has been made, the
y Minutes of the 17th Meeting of the Board also disclosed that the Board has
elaborately considered the matter with reference to the question of issuing a E
draft notification abolishing contract labour system in sweeping and
scavenging among other nature of work aryd though is appeared that a further
consideration by the Government was suggested during the course of
deliberations, the Board did not appear to have thought any need for further
consideration. On that basis the Division Bench took the view that since the
~ matter had been left for consideration of the Government by the Board, with F
its report and Government had also considered the need and necessity in the
light of the requirements of the law as enumerated under Section I 0(2) of the
Act to issue the notification in question, there is no justification to interfere
with the notification in question. Whereas at the time when the learned single
Judge considered the matter the report of the Sub-Committee was not available
G
at all.

.- --~--
.. Before us in these appeals against the order of the High Court what is
principally contended is that (i) there is no effective consultation with the
Board by the Government before issuing the notifications in question, and (ii)
the Government did not have any relevant material otherwise and, therefore, H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A in the absence of releva1it material the Government could not have issued
any notification and thus calls for interference at our hands.

Consultation does not mean concurrence and the views of the Board
are ascertained for the purpose of assisting the Government in reaching its
B conclusion on the matter one way or the other. The Government reached the
conclusion on the basis of nothing made on various aspects and the aspects
taken note of by the Government are as follows:
·~
"(a) Whether the process, operation or other
Yes
work is incidental to, or necessary for
the industry trade, business manufacture
c or occupation that is carried on in the
establishment.
(b) Whether it is of perennial nature, that is
to say, it is of sufficient duration having
regard to the nature of industry, trade
D business manufacture or occupation
carried on in that establishment. Yes
(c) Whether it is done ordinarily through Can be done
regular workmen in that establishment through regular
or an establishment similar thereon. Workmen
E
(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ Yes"
considerable number of whole-time
workmen.

What is set out in this format is what is contained in Section I 0 of the
F Act and is a mere repetition of the expression used therein. The question
posed indicate the provisions contained in the Section, while answers given
thereto are by monosyllables and it is not clear from the record available as
to whether the same were based on any material. In the 16th Meeting of the
Board. it is noted that "the members were also informed that as far as
G sweepers and scavengers were concerned the matter would be examined and
necessary proposals sent tc Government." In the 17th Meeting of the Board,
it was noted that various Sub-Committees have been formed in different
industries such as (a) Cement, (b) Paper, (c) Textiles, (d) Chemicals and (e)
Electricity Board and thereafter the draft notification abolishing contract
labour system in sweeping and scavenging was taken up for consideration.
H While the view expressed on behalf of the Management is that the sweepers
L ANlJ T MC NEIL LTD. r. GOVT OF TAMIL NAlJU I RAJENlJRA BABU, J.j 705

and sca·vengers are not having 8 hours of work but they work not more than A
2 or 3 hours a day and since employing permanent workmen is not economically
viable, they are employing contract labour in this type of work and, therefore,
the Government needed to examine whether the requirements of Section
10(2)(a) to (d) of the Act have been fulfilled before finalising the notifications.
While the representatives of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) B
took the stand that if the work is done for more then 120 days it has to be
-~ considered as being of intermittent nature and also stated that because of the
contractual nature of the work they cannot fully get benefits of employment.
The Chief Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board pointed out that
regular workmen are not willing to do this type of work and requested the
Government not to proceed with the notification. The representative of C
AITUC stated that no further examination is necessary by the Board and
- 7 notification could be issued. His view was supported by another member
representing Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS). The Chainnan stated that the
Government should take a decision in the matter:

Thus, it is clear that no definite view was expressed by the Board in this D
regard. The fact that the Board had been consulted in the matter is indisputable.
So also the fact that no decision was taken by it. Therefore, we asked the
learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to make available t:1e necessary
·. files leading to the draft notification ahd final notification and other materials
that were relied upon in issuing the notification in question. Even after careful E
perusal of these files, we found that there is no further or fresh material
available in these files.

In the circumstances, 1t ts not very clear as to how the Government
could have reached the conclusion one way or the other in the absence of
any advice by the Board and in the absence of any other material. The F
decision of the Government in issuing the notification under Section I 0( I) of
the Act is thus vitiated because of non-consideration of relevant materials.
The mere fact that several notifications have been issued in relation to
contract labour or that system in sweeping and scavenging has been abolished
in some other industries may not, by itself, be sufficient to hold that a G
common notification applicable to all industries and establishment abolishing
contract labour in sweeping and scavenging could have been issued by the
Government without necessary material. The Government ought to take into
consideration the relevant factors contained in Section I 0(2)(a) to (d) of the
Act and thereafter decide the matter. These aspects were, however, lost sight
of by the High Court in the decisions rendered by it earlier. H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] l S.C.R.

A In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in quashing the notification -;--
issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, it is made clear that it
is open to the Government to issue a fresh notification after due consideration
of the matter in accordance with law.

The appeals stand allowed accordingly.
B
S.S. Appeals allowed.

--..,... --