S.K.Gupta, Ex.Sr.Depot Manager, Aged 58 years Ors. vs State

I have heard Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned advocate for the respondent, in extenso.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 2652000 pro pounded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby prayer for

dropping the proceedings earlier rejected be fore the Trial Court [Judicial Magistrate (SubRegistrar), Jammu] vide order dated 18101998, stood

declined.

Factual matrix of the case in resuming relevant for the disposal of this Revision is that, a complaint under Section 24 of the Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act"") came to be initiated before the Trial Court in alleging that pro visions of the

Act, namely, Rules 74 81(1)(i)and81 (3) have been violated by the accused in having failed to maintain the relevant record of the Contractors,

nonsubmission of return in Form VIB and nondisplay of notes on the conspicuous place of the establishment showing rates of wages, hours of

work, wage period, date of payment, name and address of the inspector having jurisdiction and date of payment of unpaid wages, in English and

Hindi. It was further contended that the despite the delivery of inspection report dated 1671992 prepared at work site, the breaches as directed

were not rectified and failure to show satisfactory compliance had rendered the accused liable for legal action under Section 24 of the Act. It was

during the currency of proceedings that an application came to be initiated before the Trial Court by the accused petitioner for dismissal of the

complaint in assailing its maintainability on the ground that petroleum products stored by the Indian Oil Depots and managed and controlled by

Indian Oil Corporation were transported for distribution at various destinations. That the crew working on the trucks are not covered under the

provisions of the Act because such provisions are not applicable to the petitioners. It was also stated that the crew of the transporters are not

under the control of the Corporation and, therefore, cannot be treated to the workmen for the purpose of Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act. That the Indian Oil Corporation has only engaged a transporter for transportation without there being any agreement for

engagement of contract labour. It is also plended that neither crew of the transporter nor the contract labour are covered by the Act being not on

the staff of the Indian Oil Corporation. That even the Indian Oil Depot does not fall within the expression of establishment' defined under the Act.

That the Indian Oil Corporation is not the principal employer of the drivers of the Contractor engaged on the trucks by the transporter for supply

and distribution of the petroleum products and the complaint, having been filed in violation of the provisions of the Act, cannot proceed.

On the filing of the demurrer, the complainant/respondent controverted the contention of the accused/petitioner in regard to the applicability of

the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to the establishement of the accused for transportation of petroleum products to the distributors through

transporters, who happened to be the Contractors within the ambit of section 2(c) of the Act, 1970. Certificate of the registration, which was also

placed on record by accused petitioner, is covered under and governed by the provisions of the Act. The Trial Court, however, after, hearing

counsel appearing for the respective parties and going through the relevant provisions of the Act, held the application of the petitioner without merit

and accordingly dismissed. This order of dismissal of the application of the petitioner stood assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge in

Revision, who also did not find merit in the contention of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Trial Court, holding that there was no reason

to interfere with the aforesaid order, virtue of which the establishment of the accused was registered under the Contract Labour Act, 1970. Lastly,

it was submitted that the establishment of the.

The sole ground urged by Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during debate is that, the provisions of the Act are not

applicable to the establishement of the petitioner and the crew working on the trucks are not covered under the provisions of the Act. That the

crew working on the trucks of transportation of the petroleum products of the establishment to distributors and retailers are not the contract

labours for the purpose of some activities carried on in the establishment. It is not disputed that the petitioner is engaged in the transportation of the

petroleum products to the retailers. It is also not disputed that the establishement of the accused Indian Oil Corporation Bulk Depot, Jammu has

been registered under the Registration Act and a certificate of registration to this effect has been issued to the establishement. This fact itself shows

that the establishment of the accused petitioner is covered by the Act

Indubitably, this is an Act to regulate the employment of the contract labour in certain establishement as is contemplated in its preamble. The

expression 'contractor' is defined in Section 2( 1) (c) of the Act, which reads as under:

2(1) (c) 'contractor', in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a

mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishement, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of

the establishment and includes a subcontractor.

The word 'contractor' clearly envisages a contractor in relation to an establishement to produce the result through contract labour or to supply

contract for any work of the establishement. In fact, there has to be a nexus between the work of the contractor and activity of the establishement.

The 'contractors' work has to be a part and parcel of the establishment's work and related to the establishement activities. In other words, a

person, who enters into a transport contract with an establishement for the supply of goods of the establishment to different places, would be a

contractor as defined in Section 2(c) and consequently, he is obliged to have registered his name for contract in the Establishment Act. Whereas

the work 'workman' has been defined in Section 2(1) (b). which reads as under:

2(1) (b) A workman shall be deemed to be employed as contract labour"" in or in connection with the work of an establishement

when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.

A plenary reading of the aforesaid provision makes it pellucid that a contractor, engaged in the transportation of petroleum products of the

establishment through contract labour in the vehicles hired by him, is fully covered under the definition of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act as contactor

and the crew employed on the trucks for the purpose of carrying petroleum products would come within the ambit of the Act. It, therefore, follows

that the expression ""work of an establishement"" means the work site from where the petroleum products of the establishement of their bulk depot

are carried on by the contractor by employing contract labour to different outlets. The definitions of contractor, workman, contract labour,

establishement, principal employer, all indicate in the instant case that where there is direct nexus between the activities of the establishement and

activities of the per son, who entered into transport contract with and establishment for the transportation of its products to different retail ers, his

crewmen or contract labours are covered by the Act. There does not, in my view, appear any palpable illegality or impropriety in the orders

impugned warranting interference of this Court in Revision.

Having considered the facts and circumstances discussed above, the in evitable conclusion reached is that, the Revision is meritless and deserves

dismissal and ordered accordingly. Record shall be remitted back to the Trial Court forthwith where the parties through their counsel are directed

to cause appearance on 27th May, 2002.