http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUMBAI SHRANIK SANGHA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/01/1998

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                      J U D G E M E N T M. JAGANNADHA RAO. J.      The  appellant.   Bharat  Petroleum   Corporation  Ltd. (hereinafter called he Corporation) was the first respondent before the  High Court in Writ Petition No 436 of 1991 filed by Mumbai  Shramik Sangha  (a trade  union) Bombay. The said trade-union is  the first  respondent in  this  appeal.  M/s Kieenwel (India) Bombay and he Union of India are the second and third  respondent in  this appeal  and were  second  and third respondents  respectively before  the High  Court. The appeal is perferred by the Corporation against the orders of the High  Court of  Bombay dated  30.1.1997,  31.1.1997  and 21.2.1997. The  abovementioned trade-union and held that the workmen who  were employed  by the  Contractor M/s. Kleenwel (India) for cleaning sweeping etc. in the housing colony and sports complex  of the  Corporation  were  entitled  to  the benefits of  Notification dated  9.12.1976 issued    by  the Government of  India under  Section 10(1)  of  the  Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37/91970) (hereinafter called  the ‘Act’),  abolishing contract labour and hence  the said  contract  labour  should  be  absorbed. w.e.f. 1.2.1991 as permanent employees of he corporation and entitled to  the emoluments  and other benefits available to other workmen of the Corporation doing similar work.      The point  therefore  is  whether  the  words  "in  any establishment" in  section 10 of the Act which section deals with abolition  of contract  labour can  taken  in  contract labour employed  not  at  the  place  where  the  industrial operations  or  other  operations  necessary  or  incidental thereto are  carried on but also those employed at the staff quarters/sports complex of the Corporation.      Learned Solicitor General Sri T.R. Andhyarujina however strongly relied up the observation of the Constitution Bench of this  Court in  Gammon (India)  Ltd. Vs.  Union of  India [1974 (3)  SCR 665]  to contend that in view of the language used in  section 10  of the  Act and in particular the words "in any  establishment" in  section 10 (1) and the words "in that establishment"  in Section  10(2),  the  Government  of India could  not have  issued any  notification  prohibiting contract labour  who do  the work of cleaning sweeping, etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

at the  residential or  sports complex  of the  staff of the Petroleum corporation.      Learned counsel  for the  respondents have  relied upon Section 2(b)  which defines ‘contract labour’ and on section 2(1) which defines ‘workmen’ where the words ’ in connection with the  work of  an establishment  are used. Similar words are used in Section 2(9)(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act and  such words have been widely interpreted in N.E.L.P. co. Vs.  E.S.I. Corporation  [AIR 1967  SC 1364],  Hyderabad Asbestos Cement  Products Ltd. Vs. Employees insurance Court & Anr.  [AIR 1978 SC 356]. Royal Talkies Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation  [1978 (9) SCC 204], Regional Director Vs. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. [AIR 1968 SC 1686]. The words "in connection with" are also used in section 2 (f) of the Employees  Provident Fund Act. 1952 and have been widely interpreted in  P.M. Patel  & Sons  Vs. Union of India [1986 (1) SCC 32]. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgments of this Court interpreting the definition of ‘workman’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 where  even though  the words "in connection with" have not been  used, the  said words  were more or less implied . This was  in Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union Vs. Management  [1968 (1) SCR 742]. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board  Vs. Rajappa [1978 (2) SCR 213 (257)]. Strong reliance  was  also  placed  by  respondents  on  J.K.Cotton Spinning &  Weaving Mills  Co. Vs. Labour Tribunal [AIR 1964 SC 737]  where mails  working at the residential premises of the staff  were treated  as ‘workmen’  entitled to  move the Industrial  Court   and  have  the  benefits  covered  by  a notification, which was applicable to industrial employees’. In that case it was held that the words "in connection with" have to be implied n Section 2(s).      On the  other hand,  learned solicitor General contends that section  10(1) and (2) are based upon the limited power which earlier  vested with the Industrial Courts as declared in Standard  Vacuum case  [1960 (3)  SCR 466] and that power was as  stared in Vegoils Private Ltd. Vs. The Workmen [1971 (2) SCC  724] and  Sankar Mukherjee Vs. Union of India [1990 Suppl. SCC  608] vested exclusively i the Central Government and that  the judgment  in Gammon  adopts what  is  said  in standard Vaccum  as the  true basis  for section  10(1)  and 10(2) and  hence, the  power of  the Central  Government  to abolish contract labour extends  only to the contract labour at the  place where  the industrial  operations are going on and to  other operations  incidental  or  necessary  thereto again, at  the place  where industrial  operations are going on. Standard  Vaccum related  to certain cleaning operations incidental and  necessary to the main industrial operations. It is  no doubt  accepted that  even in  gammon  this  Court agreed  that   the  workmen  employed  by  a  contractor  at Allahabad where  a building  for  a  Delhi  Bank  was  being constructed, were  ‘workmen’ doing work "in connection with" the work  of the  principal employer  and  entitled  to  the welfare benefits  like drinking  water,  canteen,  latrines, rest rooms,  first aid,  equal pay  as regular workers. etc. and gave  an extended meaning to the definition of "contract labour" and  "workmen" in Section 2(b) an d 2(i) of the Act. But at  the same  time, this  Court in  Gammon  referred  to Section 10(1)  and (2)  by way of contrast, and interpreting the same,  restricted the power of prohibition in section 10 to the  contract labour  at  the  place  of  the  industrial operations and to work incidental/necessary thereto again at the place  where the  industrial operations are going on and that hence.  Section 10  cannot apply  to prohibit  contract labour at the residential quarters/sports complex which have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

no  direct  link  with  the  industrial  operations  of  the Petroleum Corporation.      We have  given our  anxious consideration  to the rival contentions. It  appears to  us that matter is important and also that  the observations  of the  Constitution  Bench  in Gammon (at  p.669, of  SER) in  so far  as  section  10  was concerned were  indeed not strictly necessary because Gammon was not  a case dealing with prohibition of contract labour. Whether the restricted scope attributed to section 10 of the Act given  in Gammon is correct or not must, in our opinion, be decided  independently. We are therefore of the view that this question  is to  be decided by a Constitution Bench. We therefore, refer  the following questions to be decided by a constitution Bench of this Court:      No. 1. "Whether the observations of      the constitution Bench in Gammon in      so far  as section 10 of the Act is      concerned are  correct and  whether      the   Central    Government   under      Sections 10  (1) &  (2) of  the Act      can   be    notification   prohibit      contract labour  doing the  work of      cleaning,  sweeping,  etc,  at  the      residential premises  of the  staff      or  sports  Complex  owned  by  the      Bharat  petroleum   Corporation  or      whether  the   Central   Government      under Section  10 of the Act has no      jurisdiction   to    abolish   such      contract labour".      No.2.  "Whether   the  Notification      dated  9.12.1976   issued  by   the      Government of  india under  Section      10(1)  of   the   Contract   Labour      (Regulation &  Abolition) Act, 1970      can   be   construed   as   validly      abolishing  can   be  construed  as      validly abolishing  contract labour      employed by contractor M/s Kleenwel      (India) Ltd. for cleaning, sweeping      etc. in   the  Staff Housing Colony      and Sports  Complex  owned  by  the      appellant-Corporation and  situated      at Chambur. Bombay."      The Registry  is directed to place the matter before My Lord the  Chief Justice  of India  for  passing  appropriate orders  referring  to  the  above  questions  of  law  to  a Constitution Bench.