IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.03.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.18617 of 2001 The Management of Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited 6, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Shastri Bhavan Chennai 600 006 2. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Shastri Bhavan Chennai 600 006 3. Union of India Rep.by the Secretary to the Government of India Labour Ministry Shram Shakthi Bhavan New Delhi 4. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary and Commissioner Labour and Employment Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with Order No.CL (P.E)/35/6/2001/E1/II dated 6.9.2001 and quash the order on the file of the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner :: Mr.Sanjay Mohan for Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates For Respondents :: Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, A.G.P.for R4 No appearance for R1 to R3 O R D E R The petitioner is a management of the Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the 1st respondent Labour Enforcement Officer, Chennai, they have filed the present Writ Petition. 2. In the impugned notice dated 6.9.2001, the 1st respondent conducted an inspection and held that the petitioner management did not have a Certificate of Registration from the appropriate Government registering their office for the purpose of engaging contract labour in terms of Section 7(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In his Inspection Report, he found the following: i) The petitioner did not maintain a Register of Contractors, thereby violating Rule 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules. ii) The abstract and notice under the Act were not displayed permanently as required under the Act. Contravening Rule 72, the payment of wages to the contract labourers were also not maintained. iii) The commencement of the contract work in terms of Rule 81 (3) was also not maintained. The petitioner management has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the said show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent, who is the authority notified by the Central Government. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 8.10.2001. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court by an order dated 8.10.2001 granted interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be made absolute on 24.9.2003. Though initially this Writ Petition was directed to be posted along with W.P.No.18618 of 2001, for the reasons best known, the same was not tagged along with the other Writ Petition. It now transpires that the other Writ Petition was disposed as early as on 8.10.2001. 4. The short point arises for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent is a jurisdictional officer entitled to issue the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned notice? In effect, whether the appropriate Government in terms of the operations carried on by the petitioner is the Central Government or the State Government. The question raised in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. 5. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 held as follows: 125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government; (b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government. 6. In that judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the term appropriate Government found under section 2(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has the same meaning as that of the Industrial Disputes Act and in cases for such an industry, if the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act is the State Government, then, the authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 will also be the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government. So long as the appropriate Government for the petitioner industry is not the Central Government under section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the question of the 1st respondent issuing notice for alleged violations of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act will not arise. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has also stated that they have got their establishment registered under section 12 of the Act from the authorities notified by the State Government. 7. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 2. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 3. The Secretary to the Government of India Union of India, Labour Ministry Shram Shakthi Bhavan, New Delhi 4. The Secretary and Commissioner Government of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 W.P.No.18617 of 2001 30.03.2010 +1 C.C. to Ms.Velayutham Pichaiya, Advocate – SR No.21011 +1 C.C. to Mr.S.Ramasubramani, Advocate – SR No.21109 LA [CO] LC 07/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/