M/S. L AND T MC NEILL TD. ETC. ETC versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 30-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
c 
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 
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. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.98 of the Madras High Court 
in W.A.No. I 078 of 1998. 
With 
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

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