CATERING CLEANERS OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 04-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CATERING CLEANERS OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1987 
B 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
"Labour only contracting" or "Inside contracting system" 
adopted by the Southern, South Central and South Eastern Railways in 
respect of catering cleaners while the other units of the Indian Railway 
have abolished it-Whether a writ of mandamus lie in a petition under 
Article 32 of the Constitution compelling the primary employees to 
C abolish the practice in the light of the provisions of s.10 of the Contract 
Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970-The Contract Labour 
(Abolition and Regulation) Central Rules, 1971, section 25(ii)(iv) and 
25(ii)(v)(a) and (b). 
D 
More than a quarter of a century ago, in the Standard Vacuum 
Refining Company v. Its Workmen, [ !960) 3 SCR 466 the Supreme 
Court affirmed the direction of the Industrial Tribunal for the abolition· 
of the contract system of labour. As a result thereof, the Contract 
Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act came to be passed, "to regulate 
the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to 
E provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters con-
nected therewith". The Central Government, in exercise of its powers 
conferred by section 35 of the Act, has made the Contract Labour 
(Abolition and Regulation) Central Rules, 1971. Section 10 of the Act 
empowers the appropriate Government to prohibit by notification in 
the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, 
F 
operation or other work in any establishment subject to the fulfilment 
of the conditions in sub-sedion (2) thereof and after consulting the 
Central Board or the State Board as the case may be. Rule 25 prescribes 
the forms, terms and condition of licence including the payment of 
minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 holiday, hours of 
work etc. etc. 
G 
The Writ Petitioners, alleged that in spite of the Report of the 
Parliamentary Committee of Petitions under the Chairmanship of Shri 
K.P. Tewari dated 30.4. 1984 and their representations the Southern 
Railway persisted in employing contract labour for cleaning its catering 
establishments and pantry cars by paying a pittance averaging Rs.2.00 
H to Rs.2.50 per day. Most of the other Railways had abolished the 
164 
\ .. 
, 
. )-" 
I 
SOU1HERN RAILWAY v. U.0.1. 
165 
system of employing labour through a contractor. Therefore, they A 
sought relief for the abolition of the Contract Labour system by the 
issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution and 
for a direction to treat them as regular employees. 
Issuing an appropriate writ in the nature of a direction, the 
Court, 
B 
HELD: 1.1 It is clear that, on the facts presented and on the 
report of the Parliamentary Committee of Petitions, the work of clean-
ing catering establishments and pantry cars is necessary and incidental 
to the industry or business of the Southern Railway and so requirement 
(a) of S.10(2) is satisfied, that it is of a perennial nature and so 
C 
requirement (b) is satisfied, that the work is done through regular 
workmen in most Railways in the country and so requirement ( c) is 
satisfied and that the work requires the employment of sufficient 
number of whole time workmen and so requirement (d) is also satisfied. 
Thus all the relevant factors mentioned in s. 10(2) of the Contract 
Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act are satisfactorily accounted for. 
D 
In addition there is the factor of profitability of the catering 
establishments. [177F-H; 178AJ 
.-I_ 
Despite this, the Supreme Court will not issue of writ of man-
damus to the Railway unless and until the Government of India fails or 
refuses to exercise the power vested in it under section 10 of the Act. 
Under section 10 Parliament has vested in the appropriate Government 
the power to prohibit the employment of Contract Labour in any pro-
cess operation or other work in any establishment. The appropriate 
. Government is required to consult the Central Board or the State Board 
· ~-
as the case may be before arriving at its decision. The decision, of 
\ 
course, will be subject to judicial review. In the circumstances the 
appropriate order to make in the present case is to direct the Central 
Government to take appropriate action under s. 10 of the Contract 
Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act in the matter of prohibiting the 
employment of contract labour in the work

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