HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23206 of 2001 Date : 06.11.2009 Between : Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Assistant Traffic Manager. …..Petitioner And The Government of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23206 of 2001 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner-Visakhapatnam Port Trust has questioned the Notice bearing No.C1/34/0/2001, dated 10th of October 2001, issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner-Establishment was inspected by the 3rd respondent-Labour Enforcement Officer on 10.10.2001. After inspection, he has prepared an inspection report, wherein, it is stated that an irregularity is noticed to the effect that the petitioner- Port Trust has engaged contract labour through M/s.TRF Limited, in the field of maintenance of Cranes owned by the Port Trust. It is alleged that such act of engaging contract labour is not only in violation of the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, but is also in violation of the Notification bearing No.319 (E), dated 08.05.1991, issued by the Government. 3. In this writ petition, it is the specific case of the petitioner that for the purpose of maintenance of Cranes, they have not engaged any contract labour, as alleged in the impugned Notice. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is categorically stated that the petitioner-Port Trust is not engaging any contractor for maintenance and repair of electrical and mechanical equipment, but, the manufacturer of those machines keeps one person on the spot for the purpose of repairing them, as and when defects are found. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as much as the petitioner-Port Trust is not engaging any contract labour in the prohibited areas as notified in the Notification bearing No.319 (E), dated 08.05.1991, issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, there is no irregularity on its part, so as to rectify the same, as ordered in the impugned Notice. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad. In the counter, while generally denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the inspection report-cum-show cause notice was issued by the Inspector in exercise of powers under Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is alleged that as the petitioner-Port Trust has engaged contract labour in the areas of maintenance and repairs to electrical and mechanical equipment owned by it, the same is in violation of the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and also Notification No.319 (E), dated 08.05.1991. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner on 04.11.2009 and also today. 6. With reference to the specific allegation of the petitioner- Port that it is not engaging any contractor for maintenance and repairs to the electrical and mechanical equipment, the same has not been answered in the counter affidavit. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as and when there are defects in the Cranes supplied by a Company, that Company itself is addressed, which will undertake repairs to the Cranes that are being operated in the area of the petitioner-Port Trust. In that view of the matter, as there are no contract labour engaged directly by the petitioner-Port Trust, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated either the provisions contained in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or the Notification issued by the Government in Notification No.319 (E), dated 08.05.1991. It is also to be noticed that the impugned notice is issued, without examining the records of the petitioner-Port Trust in proper perspective. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned Notice bearing No.C1/34/0/2001, dated 10th of October 2001, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November 2009 ajr