B.H.E.L. WORKERS' ASSOCIATION HARDWAR & ORS., ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS., ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 18-01-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
l 
B.H.E.L. WORKERS' ASSOCIATION 
HARDWAR & ORS., ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS., ETC. ETC. 
January 18, 1985 
[0. (HINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.) 
611 
A 
B 
c 
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. 
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 
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 
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 
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, 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
E 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'(1985} 2 S.C. 
R 
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-
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. 
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 
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 
employed by the principal employer under 1_ the appropriate. Industrial and 
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 Aboliti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.