CWP No.8474 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8474 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2011 Ex-Servicemen Security Services, Head Office 92/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra ... Petitioner Versus The Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) and others ... Respondents II. CWP No.8278 of 1991 (O&M) Ex-Servicemen Security Services, Head Office 92/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra ... Petitioner Versus The Regional Labour Commissioner(Central) and others ... Respondents III. CWP No.10669 of 1993 (O&M) Ex-Servicemen Security Services, Head Office 92/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra ... Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) and another ... Respondents IV. CWP No.8476 of 1997 (O&M) Ex-Servicemen Security Services, Head Office 92/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra ... Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. CWP No.8474 of 1991 (O&M) [2] Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Food Corporation of India. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. In all the four writ petitions the issues are as regards the validity of the order of the Labour Commissioner purporting to abolish Contract Labour in terms of State Government Notification dated 29.11.1985 prohibiting employment of Contract Labour in Food Storage Depots. The contention is that State notification could not have been applied for persons employed in Food Corporation of India through the Depot, since the 'appropriate Government' in terms of the definition of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'CLRA') under Section 2-f is only the Central Government in a case of establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act is the Central Government. Admittedly the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act is the Central Government and consequently the State Government notification could not be the basis for abolition of the Contract Labour in Food Corporation of India. Learned counsel refers to the Division Bench ruling of this Court in “The Senior Regional Manager v. The State of Haryana, 1990 (2) RSJ 423” that held in relation to the very same establishment as follows: CWP No.8474 of 1991 (O&M) [3] “It is pointed out that learned counsel for the parties accepted at the bar that undisputedly the Notification, dated November 29, 1985, (Copy Annexure P/1) came to an end in its operation with effect from January 28, 1986 and did not preserve the earlier Act. Even after the lapse of the Ordinance the Act substituted the definition of an appropriate Government which was made operative with effect from January 28, 1986 which admittedly deprived the authority of its power to abolish the contract labour which resulted in issuing a Notification, dated May 29, 1985 and became non- operative having been issued by a person without power with effect from January 28, 1986.” This fact was noticed that Central government was the 'appropriate Government' since 28.01.1986 in the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Food Corporation of India v. Pala Ram and others, (2008) 14 SCC 32”. 2. The very same judgment in Pala Ram's case records the fact that a notification had been issued by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act subsequently permitting contract labour for dusting, cleaning, sweeping and to do watch and ward work since 28.05.1992, that is, subsequent to the institution of the writ petition. It must be noticed that the petitioners were not seeking for absorption in Food Corporation of India on abolition of contract labour. They have only sought for quashing the circular issued by Food Corporation of India acting on the notification issued by State Government. Apart from the fact that State Government was not the 'appropriate Government' for Food Corporation of India since 28.01.1986 and hence the State notification will CWP No.8474 of 1991 (O&M) [4] not govern Food Corporation of India, the notification issued on 28.05.1992 saves the day for the petitioner. Indeed, as held in Pala Ram's case a notification issued under Section 10 of CLRA cannot be whittled down by any other notification. 3. The impugned order passed on 08.10.1990 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rohtak is quashed and all the writ petitions are allowed. JULY 21, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE