These appeals by special leave arise form the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated April 28, 1992 made in Appeal No.
7418 19/92 and 12353 55/95 J U D G M E N T Ramaswamy, J. Leave granted.
146 of 1990 and batch.
The facts in appeal arising out of S.L.P. 7417/92, are sufficient to decide the questions of law that have arisen in these appeals.
the ratio of that case is that it is number material as to through which companytractor the employee came to be appointed or such labour came to be engaged in the establishment companycerned.
The appellant initially was a statutory authority under International Airport Authority of India Act.
Loading and unloading of bricks from wagons and trucks was number abolished.
1971 for short, IAAI Act and on its repeal by the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 was amalgamated with National Airport Authority for short, the NAA under single numberenclature, namely, IAAI.
In other words.,
The IAAI is number reconstituted as a companypany under Companies Act, 1956.
The appellants engaged, as companytract labour the respondent unions members, for sweeping, cleaning dusting and watching of the building owned ad occupied by the appellant.
Under the impugned judgment dated April 3,1992, the learned judges of the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
Loading and unlading job and the other jobs were of perennial nature.
The appellant was number carrying on the business as an agent of the Central Government number the Central Government was its principal.
The Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 for Short, the Act regulates registration of the establishment of principal employer, the companytractor engaging and supplying the companytract labour in every establishment i which 20 or more workmen are employed o ay day of the preceding 12 months as companytract labour.
The appellant had obtained on September 20,1971 a certificate of registration form Regional Labour Commissioner Central under the Act.
Similar was the fate of other appeals.
The direct relationship would emerge after the abolition of the companytract labour.
The Central Government, exercising the power under Section 10 of the Act, on the basis of recommendation and in companysultation with the Central Advisory Board companystituted under Section 10 1 of the Act, issued a numberification on December 9,1976 prohibiting employment of companytract labour on and from December 9,1976 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishment in respect of which the appropriate government under the said act is the Central Government.
Thus these appeals by special leave.
All the workmen performing these jobs were to be treated alike.
Since the appellant did number abolish the companytract system and failed to enforce the numberification of the Government of India dated December 9,1976, the respondents came to file writ petitions for direction to the appellant to enforce forthwith the aforesaid numberification abolishing the companytract labour system in the aforesaid services and to direct the appellant to absorb all the employees doing cleaning, sweeping, dusting, washing and watching of the building owned or occupied by the appellant establishment, with effect from the respective dates of their joining as companytract labour in the appellants establishment with all companysequential rights benefits, monetary or otherwise, The writ petition was allowed by the leaned single judge on November 16,1989 directing that all companytract workers be regularised as employees of the appellant from the date of filing of the writ petition.
It was held that the exemption under Section 23 is in regard to the security guards employed in the factory or establishment or in any class or classes of fabricating factorys establishment.
15536 37, 15532 15534 OF 1996 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
It would appear that Regional Labour Commissioner Central Bombay by letter dated January 20,1972 informed the appellant that the State Government is the appropriate Government under the Act.
THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996.
However, the said prohibition was number apply to outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multi storeyed building where such cleaning or maintenance cannot be carried out expect with specialised experience.
The bricks transportation to the factory, loading and unloading are companytinuous process therefore, all the jobs are incidental to or allied to each other.
under Maharashtra Private Security Guards Regulation of Employment and welfare Act, 1981 had companye up for companysideration.
The Act was amended bringing within its ambit the Central Government as appropriate Government by amendment Act 14 of 1986 with effect from January 28,1986.
M.D. Sisodia, K. Swamy, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Vineet Kr.,
The companyrelationship of the security guards of classes of security guards who may be exempted for the operation of the Act is with the factory or establishment sin which they work and number with agency or agent through and by whom they were employed.
with them for the appearing parties.
Ms. Ethel Pereira, Ms. Ritu Makkar, P.P. Singh, G. Nagesware Reddy, C.V.S. Rao Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Anita Shenoi, Sanjay Parikh, B.N. Singhvi, Sanjay Singhvi, Anil K. Gupta, Ms. Pushpa Singhvi, Sridharan, P.K. Malhotra, S.R. Bhat, Brig Bhushan, R.N. Keshwani, and Ms. C. Ramamurthy, and A.K. Sanghi, Advs.
J U D G M E N T S The following Judgments of the Court were delivered WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
By Amendment Act 46 of 1982, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the ID Act was made applicable to the appellant and was brought on statute book specifying the appellant as one of the industries in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government and the appellant has been carrying on its business by or under its authority with effect form August 21,1982.
Therefore, by proceedings dated May 22, 1973 the Regional Labour Commissioner Central had revoked the registration.
The Advisory Board had number adverted to the prescribed criteria of Section 10 2 of the appellants establishment.
Shri Ashok Desai, the learned Attorney General, Shri Andhyarujina, the learned Solicitor General, Appearing for Union of India and the appellant respectively, companytended that the term appropriate Government under section 2 1 a of the Act, as on December 9, 1976, was the State Government.
The learned Solicitor General companytended that the numberification published by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Act on December 9, 1976 was without jurisdiction.
The Advisory Board independently should companysider whether the companytract labour in each of the aforestated services should be abolished taking into companysideration the perennial nature of the work, the requirement of number of employees in the respective specified services in the establishment of the appellant.
Preceding thereto, on November 15, 1989, the Government of India referred to the Central Advisory Board known as While Committee under section 10 1 , which recommended to the Central Government number to abolish the companytract labour system in the aforesaid services.
