IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTER PATENT APPEAL NOS. 1649 OF 1997 TO 1659 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1661 TO 1664 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.1954 OF 1994 TO 1967 OF 1994 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9401 OF 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- TATA CHEMICALS LTD. & ORS. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SB VAKIL for the appellants MR RJ OZA for Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICES M.R.CALLA & MR.J.R.VORA, JJ. Date of decision:11/05/99 COMMON CAV JUDGEMENT (per M.R.Calla, J.) These Letters Patent Appeals, 15 in number, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 1.12.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in the group of Special Civil Applications Nos.1954 to 1967 of 1994 and 9401 of 1993 whereby all the Special Civil Applications were dismissed. Whereas these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order and all these matters involve common questions of law based on identical facts, we propose to decide these 15 Letters Patent Appeals by this common judgment and order. 2. The appellant no.1 in all these matters is a Limited Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 in the name and style of M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd. engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy chemicals such as inorganic, photographic, insecticides, pesticides and other miscellaneous chemicals including Caustic Soda and Soda Ash. This Company claims to be the biggest Soda Ash manufacturer in the country and has come with the case that it has a large requirement of limestone because Lime stone is the basic raw material for manufacturing Soda Ash. It is also the case of the appellant Company that it holds on lease Limestone mines in the districts of Junagadh and Jamnagar; it also purchases Limestone from private leaseholders of Limestone mines who engage contract labour for working the mines and it also purchases Limestone from private parties. The Limestone is classified in different grades based on lime contents and other constituents. The appellant no.2 in these appeals claims to be the shareholder of the Company while the appellant no.3 in these cases (except in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of Special Civil Application No.9401 of 1993) is the party which provides the contract labour to the Company. Whereas the parties providing the contract labour are different at different places, such parties have been arrayed as appellant no.3 and, therefore, different Special Civil Applications and different Letters Patent Appeals have been filed. The appellant Company also claims that it holds the certificate of registration under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and that the appellant no.3, i.e. the party providing contract labour in all these matters holds a licence under Sections 12 and 13 of the aforesaid Act. 3. The appellant Company came with the case that right from beginning its factory for manufacturing Soda Ash has been employing contract labour through contractors in Limestone mines. It is also the case of the appellant Company that earlier, Limestone supply from the Company's captive mines was done by M/s.Palanji Shaupuraji & Co. but after the coming into force of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations under the Mines Act in 1964, the appellant Company started departmental mining through contractors and since then the skilled works like drilling and blasting are carried out by regular employees and unskilled work of Limestone breaking, loading, unloading and transport are carried out through contract labour. The Company and other Soda Ash manufacturers may purchase Limestone from the market and it is not necessary for them to operate Limestone mines, and it is also the case of the appellant Company that in fact Soda Ash manufacturers partly purchase their Limestone requirements from private leaseholders. 4. In the works of overburdened removal and drilling and blasting in the Limestone and dolomite mines, the Government of India had prohibited the employment of contract labour way back on 22nd June 1980. It has also been stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, constituted a Committee under Section 5 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to go into the working of contract labour system in the Limestone and Dolomite mines, in the Country. The Committee so constituted under Section 5 of the Act to collect the information from cross-section of mines captive and noncaptive spread over different States, namely, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka had visited the Limestone and Dolomite mines in these States. It is also the case of the appellant Company that this Committee did not visit any Limestone or Dolomite mine in Gujarat and also did not visit any mine operated by the appellant Company. On 17th March 1993, the Government of India issued a notification dated 17th March 1993 prohibiting employment of contract labour with effect from 3.4.1993 under Section 10(1) of the Act. Thus, the prohibition against the employment of contract labour became effective from 3rd April 1993 in the Limestone and Dolomite mines in the Country in the following works: (i) Raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of Limestone/Dolomite, and (ii) Transportation of Limestones/Dolomites which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumpers, conveyors and transporting from mine site to factory. Against this notification dated 17th March 1993 issued by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour as aforesaid, the Company made a representation to the Government of India on 21.6.1993. On 14th July 1993, the appellant Company informed the Government of India that it was submitting an application under Section 34 of the Act for exempting its establishment from the operation of the above notification. On 20th January 1994, the Licencing Officer, Government of India, passed an order revoking and cancelling the licence granted to the parties which were providing contract labour to the Company and also advised the Company that the certificate of registration held by it under Section 7 of the Act stood revoked with immediate effect. Aggrieved from the notification No.U-23013/15/86-L.W.(Vol.II) dated 17th March 1993 which was annexed as Annexure.A with the Special Civil Applications prohibiting the employment of contract labour in Limestone and Dolomite mines in the Country under Section 10(1) of the Act with effect from the date of its publication, i.e. 3rd April 1993 with regard to two works pointed out hereinabove in the earlier part of this order and the order dated 20th January 1994 filed with Special Civil Applications as Annexure.B under which the licence (valid upto 4th May 1994) granted to the parties providing contract labour was revoked and cancelled with immediate effect, the appellants filed the Special Civil Applications before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These Special Civil Applications have been decided and dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 1.12.1997 and now the appellants (original petitioners) are before us through these Letters Patent Appeals wherein the notice returnable on 20th April 1998 was issued in March 1998 as per the order sheet recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No.1649 of 1997. 5. The impugned notification dated 17th March 1993 is reproduced as under: "New Delhi, the 17th March, 1993. S.O. 707.-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits with effect from the date of publication of this notification the employment of contract labour in the works specified in the following Schedule, in the Limestone and Dolomite Mines, in the country namely:- SCHEDULE (1) Raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone/dolomite, and (2) Transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumpers, conveyors and transportation from mine site to factory. No.U-23013/15/86.L.W.(Vol.II) PADMA VENKATACHALAM, Director." The impugned order dated 20th January 1994 is only a consequence of the impugned notification dated 17th March 1993. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on more than one grounds including the ground that the learned Single Judge should not have decided the Special Civil Applications on merits even if the learned Counsel did not remain present and that he should have either adjourned the matter or should have dismissed the Special Civil Applications in default. We will be dealing with the latter ground in the later part of this order. First, we may deal with the grounds on which the decision of the learned Single Judge has been on merits impugned before us. It may be observed that in the context of the pleadings as were available before the learned Single Judge at the time he heard the matter (because the rejoinder appears to have been filed on 21.10.1997, i.e. after the matter was heard but before the pronouncement of judgment as has been stated in the memo of Letters Patent Appeals itself at page 'G' para 11), under para 6 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has briefly narrated the grounds on the basis of which the impugned notification Annexure.A and the impugned order Annexure.B were challenged in the Special Civil Applications and has dealt with these contentions in paras 29 to 50 of the judgment in the light of the scheme of the Act and has then dismissed the Special Civil Applications with the observations and directions in para 51 of the judgment which reads as under: "51. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case and the further fact that the impugned notification has subsequently been modified if still some grievance of the petitioners survives in respect of the revocation of licence and cancellation of certificate of registration, it is open to them to file an appeal against these orders before the appellate authority and in case such an appeal is filed within a period of one month from today, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and be decided on merits." 7. Having gone through the judgment and having heard learned Counsel for both the sides, we find that there is no justification for the grievance raised on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the contentions which were raised in the petition, on the contrary, we find that the contentions as were raised have been duly adjudicated upon and it cannot be said that the impugned judgment suffers from the vice of non adjudication of the contentions raised in the petition. 8. Whereas the impugned notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act and/or the revocation or the cancellation of the licence have been challenged, on the basis of the arguments which have been raised before us, we find that the main points which are required to be considered are as under: (A) Whether the impugned notification under Section 10(1) of the Act has been issued by the Central Government without application of mind? (B) Whether the principles of natural justice were required to be followed and the appellants were required to be heard before issuing the impugned notification? (C) Whether the impugned notification is violative of Section 10 of the Act? (D) Whether the impugned notification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 9. Before we proceed to deal with these questions, we may usefully reproduce Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: "10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as-- (a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture 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, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment; (c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto; (d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. Explanation.-- If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final." RE: POINT 'A' 10. The Act in question is an Act to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. Under the Scheme of the Act, the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, which will be hereinafter referred as 'the Central Board' is to be constituted by the Central Government under Section 3. This Central Board may constitute such Committees and for such purpose or purposes as it may think fit. The registration of establishment has been provided under Section 7 and the revocation of registration in certain cases in Section 8 thereof. The effect of nonregistration has been provided in Section 9. Section 10 begins with the nonobstente clause and provides for the prohibition of employment of contract labour and empowers the appropriate Government after consultation with the Central Board to prohibit the contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment by publishing the notification in the Official Gazette. In this context, the only requirement is the consultation with the Central Board. The application of mind by the Central Government is required to the extent that the issue of the notification under Section 10(1) prohibiting the contract labour must be after consultation with the Central Board. It is clear from the affidavit-in-reply dated 8th August 1997 filed on behalf of the respondents that a Committee was appointed under Section 5 by the Central Board to go into the question of working of contract labour system in Limestone and Dolomite mines in the country with the terms of reference as stipulated therein vide resolution dated 20th January 1986. The Committee decided to collect the relevant information from the cross-sections of mines, captive or non-captive all over the country and such information/data were furnished by 25 mine owners/managements including the present appellant Company, i.e. M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd., Ranavav, District Junagadh, captive mine attached to Soda Ash plant by replying the questionnaire which was circulated by the Committee. Thus, the data was collected from the concerned mine owners all over the country and the Committee also visited five States viz. Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which were selected to represent the regions and the Committee selected cross-sections of mines operated in public sector as well as private sector representing both big mines and small establishments. This Committee also held meeting with the representatives of the mine workers/Unions and the representatives of the management; it also visited the labour colonies to see their living conditions and this Committee observed that in majority of mines the statutory welfare amenities like provisions of drinking water, first aid, urinals and latrines, washing facilities, canteens, etc., which had been provided were not upto the prescribed standard. A tripartite committee was constituted including the National Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd., Federation of Mineral Industries, representatives from employer's side and Indian Mine Workers' Federation and Indian National Mine Workers' side apart from Steel Authority of India and Indian Bureau of Mines and this Committee made an in-depth study of the contract labour system in Limestone and Dolomite mines and submitted its report recommending prohibition of employment of contract labour in the Limestone and Dolomite mines. This report was placed before the Central Board and after consultation with the Central Board and following the process of law and keeping in view the guidelines in clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act, the notification dated 17th March 1993 was issued by the Central Government. In this background, the requirement of consultation with the Central Board was fully complied with and there is no basis or material to hold that the impugned notification has been issued without application of mind. RE: POINT 'B' 11. So far as the question of following the principles of natural justice and giving opportunity of hearing and the showcause notice is concerned, the point is stated only to be rejected for the simple reason that it is essentially a quasi legislative function and neither the opportunity or the show cause notice has been provided under the statute nor it can be said to be a case of notification entailing any penal consequence so as to attract the requirement of following the principles of natural justice. Neither it is the requirement of the statute nor it is required otherwise under law to follow the principles of natural justice in cases where the notifications are issued in exercise of quasi legislative function and if at all the requirement of following the principles of natural justice is stretched too far, the following of the same stands duly incorporated through the constitution of a tripartite Committee which includes the representation of the management as well as the employees. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the representation of the management was there in the Committee so as to place their point of view and in this view of the matter, the argument with regard to the natural justice or the grievance that the show cause notice was not issued and the opportunity was not given cannot be even said to be available to the appellants. Besides this, this point stands concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of our own High Court in the case of South Gujarat Textile Processors Association v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 (1) GLH 94 wherein, the notification issued under Section 10 of the same Act was under challenge and after considering the entire case law, the Division Bench categorically held as under: "Thus the decision of the Government reflected in the notification is clearly the result of quasi legislative activity and as such, it does not attract any requirement of provisions of notice for hearing." This decision in the case of South Gujarat Textile Processors Association (supra) was followed and relied upon in yet another Division Bench decision of our own High Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995 (1) GLR 143 wherein the same principle has been reiterated with regard to the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act and the Division Bench has again held that, the law does not require that the notification should communicate the reasons why the Government exercises its power under Section 10 and that action taken by the Government is quasi legislative in nature and not quasi judicial or administrative. Therefore, while discharging quasi legislative function, the Government is not required to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. RE: POINT 'C' 12. The thrust of this point is as to whether the contract labour may be prohibited only establishmentwise under Section 10 and not with reference to the works in the establishments in general. No provision of enactment or any part of a particular provision can be read in isolation. It is very clear that the object of the Act was to see that the employment of contract labour is to be regulated and abolished in appropriate cases. It is very clear that the Central Board under Section 3 is to advise the Central Government to carry out the functions assigned to it under the Act and the Central Board has also been invested with the power to constitute Committees. The employment of contract labour may be prohibited under Section 10(1) itself in any process, operation, or the other work in any establishment. There may be several establishments which may carry on the same process or operation or related works and, therefore, whatever any such process or operation or other works are carried out in establishments, the employment of contract labour may be prohibited. In the instant case, the notification itself says that the employment of contract labour is prohibited in the works and in the specified schedule in the Limestone and Dolomite mines. Therefore, in all these industrial establishments relating to Limestone and Dolomite mines, the contract labour has been prohibited with regard to the works specified in the schedule and therefore, there is no basis to say that the notification is not in accordance with Section 10 of the Act and that it can be done with reference to establishment only, as it has been clearly conceived that the prohibition of employment of contract labour may be for any process or operation or other works in any establishment and this has been precisely done through the notification in the instant case. The entry no.2 which has been substituted by the notification dated 4th July 1996 also does not impinge upon the validity of the notification and the consequence thereof. Even if the words, 'transportation of Limestone and Dolomite' has been deleted from the initial entry no.2 and it has been substituted so as to keep it confined within the mines site and not from the mines site to factory it would only mean that the prohibition of employment of contract labour is against the transportation within the mines site. While in the initial entry, loading into and unloading from was made to be inclusive of transportation of Limestone and Dolomite as such and under the substituted entry, the transportation of Limestone and Dolomite from the site to factory has been excluded, there is no basis to raise the argument that the notification becomes violative of Section 10 nor this substituted entry affords any ground so as to render the consequential order Annexure.B to be illegal at the time when it was issued in January 1994. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this point and the same is hereby rejected. RE: POINT 'D' 13. The argument is based on Article 14 assailing the notification to be discriminatory. It appears that the basis of this argument is that as per the list of Limestone and Dolomite mines in India, there are thousands of Limestone and Dolomite mines located in various States which produce different grades of Limestone and Dolomite and different grades of Limestone/Dolomite are suitable for use in different industries which consume Limestone/Dolomite mines maintained captive mines and buy their requirement of Limestone and Dolomite from other lessees of such mines and that all Limestone and Dolomite mines are not mechanised. Mechanised mines employ skilled labour and non-mechanised mines employ unskilled labour and that there are regions where Limestone and Dolomite mines are situated in continuous large tracts and there are regions where Limestone/Dolomite mines are scattered. The production of different grades of Limestone/Dolomite so as to use in various industries for different purposes has nothing to do with the question of prohibition of employment of contract labour. The Committee which was constituted for that purpose and which submitted its report to the Central Board on the basis of which the notification under Section 10 has been issued by