@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This petition has been filed on behalf of a Security and Detective Bureau of a Paper Mill running at Sirpur Kagaznagar in the district of Adilabad. It is submitted that, Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued a notification in the year 1981 which reads as follows:
"Watch and ward personnel if not hired through specialised agencies provided the employees of such agencies are getting better wages and conditions of service than the lowest paid employee with the principal employer."
The petitioner claims that it is a specialised agency in the work of providing security to the industrial and other establishments. It is further submitted that the petitioner took''a licence u/s 12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act,1970 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') on 31-12-1990. The Sirpur Paper Mills entered into an agreement with the petitioner for providing security and vigilance services to the Mill. The 2nd respondent gave a notice to the petitioner and Sirpur Paper Mills asking them to furnish the details of wages and service conditions of the lowest paid employee of the Company. The Sirpur Paper Mill replied and took a stand that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.362 the wages to be paid to the watch and ward personnel had to be paid according to the said G.O. and the watch and ward staff of the petitioners were paid more than the prescribed minimum wages. According to the petitioner the watch and ward staff were paid @ Rs.660/- per month and this was more than what was fixed as minimum wages by tile Andhra Pradesh Government. On 21st July, 1990 the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner and Sirpur Paper Mills to show cause as to why they had violated Rule 25(v)(a) of the A.P. Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Rules, 1971. The Sirpur Paper Mills submitted the reply stating that Rule 25(v)(a) was not applicable to the security personnel in view of the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government. It was also stated that the personnel employed through agencies were being paid higher than the minimum wages. A similar reply was given by the petitioner also. The 2nd respondent by order dated 27-10-1990 cancelled the licence of the petitioner and informed the Sirpur Paper Mills that the continuance of the above said contract firm of hiring watch and ward personnel through specialised agencies without paying wages on par with the company security staff would be unlawful.
2. The short controversy in this case appears to be that, there were security personnel in the Sirpur Paper Mills who had been engaged directly by the Mill and there were security personnel who had been engaged through petitioner. Both the categories were paid differently. Similar pay was not paid to the persons who had been employed by the paper mill directly and those who had been employed through petitioner. Therefore, a notice under Rule 25(v)(a) of the Act was given to the petitioner as well as to the paper mill. Ultimately the respondents directed cancellation of the licence of the petitioner in terms of provisions of the Act and an order was passed on 21st November, 1990 by the appellate authority after the order passed by 2nd respondent had been challenged in appeal.
3. I have gone through both the orders and heard the learned Counsel for petitioner. Counter has not been filed.
4. In the order passed by 2nd respondent on 27-10-1990 it has been noticed that Sirpur Paper Mills has two sets of security staff one employed by the Company and the other employed by the Contractor i.e., the petitioner. It has also been noticed that both groups were discharging the same and similar functions. The factory was inspected by Asst. Commissioner of Labour on 17-7-90 and it was found that one Sri Mohan lal, Sri Ganeshlal and Sri Premsing who belong to Company''s staff and Sri Raja Narasaiah Sri Chandram Pille and Sri M. Thimpathi who were employed by the petitioner were deputed at the main gate and found discharging the same work. The Inspecting Officer was informed that all the above named persons were Security guards. It was further noticed by the Inspecting Officer that the Company staff were being paid more than Rs.900/- per month and the persons employed through the petitioner''s Company were being paid only Rs.600/-per month. It has further been noticed by respondent No.2 that in his reply the contractor i. e., the petitioner did not deny the fact of difference in wages but it was tried to be justified. The 2nd respondent did not find favour with the justification offered and therefore he issued orders u/s 14(i)(b) of the Act and forfeited the licence. After this order was passed, a writ petition was filed being W.P.No.15636 of 1990. This petition was disposed of at the admission stage. The Court observed that, Section 15 of the Act provide an appeal against the impugned order, therefore the writ petition was not entertained. An appeal was filed thereafter and the appeal was also dismissed and now this writ petition has been filed.
5. This is not disputed that provisions of A.P. Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,1970 applies to the petitioner and to the controversy. This has also not been disputed that the rules framed under the Act are applicable to the controversy in question. The only defence taken is that, Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued an order being G.O.Ms.No.287 dated 7-5-1981. Whatever the terms of Government Order will it supersede the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder would be the short question. The Act is a central legislation and has been promulgated by the Parliament with a view "to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith" Section 14(i)(b) of the Act makes it applicable to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour. Section 7 makes it compulsory for every principal employer of an establishment to which the Act applies to get registration from the concerned authorities. The power to appoint licensing officers is given u/s 11 and licences are granted u/s 13 and licences can be revoked and suspended u/s 14. An appeal can be taken u/s 15. u/s 33 Central Government has the power to give directions to the Government of any State as to the carrying into execution in the State the provisions contained in the Act. Section 34 gives power to Central Government to remove difficulties and Section 35 gives power to the appropriate Government to frame rules and in terms of Section 35 rules have been framed and Rule 25(v)(a) lays down:
"25(v)(a) in cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work
Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work, the same shall be decided by the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh whose decision shall be final."
These rules leaves no doubt that both sets of security guards had to be paid some wages. Since the rule has been framed under the Central Act, even if there was a Government order contrary to Rule 25(v) that would simply be inapplicable because the concern of the petitioner as well as Paper Mill are subject to the Act and Rules that have been framed by the competent Government in accordance with the Act. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction to anybody including the State Government to pass any orders which would run contrary to Rule25(v). In a way, by justifying his actions the petitioner has all along admitted that the personnel employed through them were not being paid same wages as the Security Guards who had been engaged by the Paper Mill itself. Section-14 of the Act makes it obligatory on the authorities to revoke or suspend the licence or forfeit the sura, if any, or any portion thereof deposited as security after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of showing cause, if a licence granted u/s 12 has been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or the holder of licence has, without reasonable cause failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the licence has been granted or has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Since admittedly the petitioners had violated and contravened Rule 25(v)(a) therefore the respondents were well within their rights to cancel the licence in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
6. For the reasons given above, I have not found any infirmity with the orders passed u/s 14(i)(b) or Section 15 of the Act The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
