@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing the communication dated 14/19.9.1998 issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been requested to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the alleged inspection report of the said Labour Enforcement Officer and also to show-cause as to. why legal action u/s 23 and/or 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 (hereinafter referred as the said "Act" for the sake of brevity) should not be taken against them for the alleged irregularities mentioned in the said inspection report and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from assuming jurisdiction and taking any action against the petitioners under provisions of Section 23 and/or 24 of the said Act, with a declaration that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in the case of the petitioners as they are not contractors within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (1)(c) of the said act.
2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is as to whether impugned notices issued is devoid of jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The point in issue for consideration of this Court is as to whether the provision of contract labour is applicable in the instant case.
3. The petitioner herein is a Security Agency who directly employs Security Personnel for deployment of the same and thus, he is the employer and does not use any intermediary.
4. Under the definition clause of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 Section 2(b) (c) and (g) defines workman, contractor and principal employer as under:
2(b) a workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment 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;
2(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 establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
2(g) "principal employer" means:
(i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other office as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf,
(ii) in a factor, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named.
(iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the Manager of the mine, the person so named,
(iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment.
5. On reading the aforesaid it will be clear that a workman will be deemed to be employee as contract labour when he is hired through a contractor to produce given result for the establishment through contract labour or through contractor who supply contract labour for any work of the establishment for the principal employer and in case if the aforesaid conditions as stipulated in the definition clause is fulfilled then Section 12 mandates that any contractor to whom the act applies shall undertake or exclude any work through the contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence. In the instant case the admitted position is that there is neither any contractor nor there is any contract labour working for any establishment for or on behalf of principal employer. It is a case of a direct relation of a private limited company who is employer and its employee and thus the notices issued for initiating action u/s 23 read with 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is without any authority of law and is devoid of jurisdiction.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Mokhtar Khan fairly submits that the deployment is made directly by the petitioner company of its own employee and thus there was no need for taking licence u/s 12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the admitted position that there is no contract labour and petitioner being an employer of the security personnel/workmen who are deputed for security work, there is no application of the provisions of Contract Labour Act and the impugned order/communication dated 14/19.9.1998 being devoid of any jurisdiction is accordingly quashed.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to cost.
