7-wp.573-04 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.573 OF 2004 Hindalco Industries Limited. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.K. Talsania, Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. Mahesh Menon & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.S.M. Dharap, Advocate i/b. N.G. Helekar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 39. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner by this Petition has challenged the notification dated 10th October, 2003 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though there is no dispute that maintenance of the canteen is the requirement of the statute and 7-wp.573-04 2 because it is the requirement of the statute the work is of perennial nature. But, according to the learned Counsel that by itself is not enough for abolishing the contract labour. The learned Counsel further submits that a ground was specifically raised before the Government that there are several industries in the same locality where like the petitioner establishment of the canteen is a requirement of statute but still the contract labour in relation to such canteens has not been cancelled and it is done in respect of the petitioner company only. However, though specific objection was raised, the same has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities. The learned Counsel appearing for the workers accepts that though the contention that the other similarly situated industries in the locality also run statutory canteen through contractor has specifically been raised but has not been considered. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Considering that the abolition of contract labour has drastic consequence so far as the industries is concerned, in our opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the Government before issuing the notification abolishing canteen labour to consider all relevant contentions raised by the petitioner. In such 7-wp.573-04 3 circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice : :: O R D E R :: [i] The notification impugned in the Petition dated 10th October, 2003 is set-aside; [ii] The State Government is directed to reconsider the issues in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The State Government can proceed on the footing that the canteen that is to be provided by the petitioner is requirement of statute and that because it is requirement of the statute the work is of perennial nature, the State Government is obliged to decide whether only these two factories are enough to abolish contract labour. [iii] Other contentions that may be raised by both the sides shall also be considered by the State Government. The State Government shall make final order as expeditiously as possible, in any case within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. [iv] The State Government shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the workmen as also the petitioner. The State Government shall also permit them to produce documents 7-wp.573-04 4 and affidavit before it. [v] The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a statement that the contract of the contractor who is presently engaged by the petitioner for running the canteen shall not be terminated except in case the contract is required to be terminated because of some conduct of the contractor, till pursuant to this order fresh order is made by the Government. Statement is accepted. [vi] Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [vii] The Government to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)