Air India Statutory Corporation etc. Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 15535 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7417 of 1992)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-15534 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7418-19/92 and 12353-55/95)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7417 of 1992)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-15534 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7418-19/92 and 12353-55/95)
Petitioner: Air India Statutory Corporation etc.
Respondent: United Labour Union & Ors. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 15535 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7417 of 1992)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-15534 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7418-19/92 and 12353-55/95)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7417 of 1992)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 15536-37, 15532-15534 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7418-19/92 and 12353-55/95)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA & S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 06, 1996
JUDGEMENT:
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.: (Concurring Judgment)
66.I have gone through the lucid and erudite judgment prepared by learned Brother Ramaswamy, J. I wholly concur with what has been held therein. I endorse each and every conclusion to which my learned Brother Ramaswamy, J. has reached. However, as the fate of erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has always raised a vaxed question before the High Courts and before this Court, I have thought it fit to pen my observations on this question. It is true that a Bench of two-Judges of this Court to which I was a party in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. JT 1995 (4) SC 264 = 1995 (5) SCC 27 in the light of earlier judgment of two-Judges’ Bench of this Court in the case of Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. JT 1991 (4) SC 413 = 1992 (1) SCC 695 had to soften the rigour of the latter decision, by trying to evolve a locus paenitentiae for contract labourers on abolition of their contract labour from the establishment. But on further consideration it is found, as rightly held by Brother Ramaswamy, J., that such a scheme would not be workable. Under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) twin methodology had been adopted by the legislature. In the first instance, it sought to regulate contract labour employed in any establishment wherein such labour was not of a perennial nature but has to be regulated so that the right to life available to workmen as per Article 21 would not be rendered illusory. Various welfare measures have been provided by the Act in connection with such regulations. The contract workers who are engaged by the contractor for the benefit of the principal employer are brought within the beneficial sweep of Chapter V of the Act. Section 16 deals with provision of canteens for such workmen. Section 17 deals with rest-rooms. Section 18 enjoins the contractor employing such contract labour in connection with work of such establishment to provide sufficient supply of wholesome drinking water as well as sufficient number of latrines and urinals of the prescribed types and washing facilities. Section 19 enables such contract labour to get first aid facilities to be provided in the establishment. Section 20 imposes on the principal employer liability to discharge the obligations regarding providing of amenities as laid down by Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in the establishment, if the contractor defaults in his duties. Section 21 enjoins the principal employer to see to it that proper wages are paid to such contract labour and to nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages as laid down by Section 21. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 makes the principal employer liable to pay such wages to the contract labourers if the contractor fails to make payment of their wages, and then to recover the same from the contractor. Chapter VI deals with penalties and procedure for enforcement of these welfare measures for the benefit of the contract labourers who are brought within the regulatory sweep of the Act. This is one facet of the Act. The other object of the Act is to abolish the contract labour system. In cases where the contract labour is employed on a work which is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment of the principal employer. As per Section 10(2) of the Act, once conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the appropriate Government on the report of the Advisory Board has to abolish contract labour system from each process, operation or other work in an establishment. The conditions for undertaking such an exercise by such Government in connection with the establishment of principal employer are laid down by Section 10(2) clauses (a) to (d). These conditions clearly indicate that the work which the contract labourers are doing is of a perennial nature and is incidental to or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment and it is otherwise done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto and it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen. Once these conditions are established, on the basis of the report of the advisory board concerned, it is an obligation of the appropriate Government to abolish such contract labour system prevailing in the given process or operation in the establishment.
67. Now the moot question is as to what happens after such prohibition. It is obvious that prior to abolition, the contract labour doing work of perennial nature on the establishment of principal employer had the advantage of regulatory provisions found in Chapter V and these provisions were given teeth by the legislature in Chapter VI by providing for penalties and procedure for imposition of sanctions by prosecution. The question is whether after abolition of contract labour system, the contract labourers who were earlier having regulatory protections would be rendered persona non grata and would be thrown out from the establishment and told off the gates. Then in such a case the remedy of abolition of contract labour would be worse than the disease and it has to be held that the legislature while trying to improve the lot of erstwhile contract labourers who are doing work of perennial nature for the principal employer and are doing work which is otherwise to be done by regular workmen had really left them in the lurch by making them lose all the facilities available to contract labour on the establishment as per Chapter V and desired them to wash their hands off the establishment and get out and face starvation. It is axiomatic that if they continued to be contract labourers their wages would have been guaranteed under Section 21 of the Act with an obligation on the principal employer to pay them if the contractor fails to discharge his obligation in connection with payment of wages. Wages are the livelihood of workmen and his large number of dependents. If on abolition of contract labour system, contract labour itself is to be abolished, it would cause economic ruin and economic death to contract labourer and his dependents for amelioration of whose lot order under Section 10 is to be passed. If it is held that on abolition of contract labour system, the erstwhile contract labourers are to be thrown out of the establishment lock, stock and barrel, it would amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. That obviously cannot be the scope, ambit and purport of Section 10 of the Act. It has to be kept in view that contract labour system in an establishment is a tripartite system. In between contract workers and the principal employer is the intermediary contractor and because of this intermediary the emploer is treated as principal employer with various statutory obligations flowing from the Act in connection with regulation of the working conditions of the contract labourers who are brought by the intermediary contractor on the principal’s establishment for the benefit and for the purpose of the principal employer and who do his work on his establishment through the agency of the contractor. When these contract workers carry out the work of the principal employer which is of a perennial nature and if provisions of Section 10 get attracted and such contract labour system in the establishment gets abolished on fulfilment of the conditions requisite for that purpose, it is obvious that the intermediary contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term ‘principal employer’. Unless there is a contractor agent there is no principal. Once the contractor intermediary goes the term ‘principal’ also goes with it. Then remains out of this tripartite contractual scenario only two parties – the beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for these erstwhile contract labourers. It was urged that Section 10 nowhere provides for such a contingency in express term. It is obvious that no such express provision was required to be made as the very concept of abolition of a contract labour system wherein the work of the contract labour is of perennial nature for the establishment and which otherwise would have been done by regular workmen, would posit improvement of the lot of such workmen and not its worsening. Implicit in the provision of Section 10 is the legislature intent that on abolition of contract labour system, the erstwhile contract-workmen would become direct employees of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and were enjoying all the regulatory facilities on that very establishment under Chapter V prior to the abolition of such contract labour system. Though the legislature has expressly not mentioned the consequences of such abolition, but the very scheme and ambit of Section 10 of the Act clearly indicates the inherent legislative intent of making the erstwhile contract labourers direct employees of the employer on abolition of the intermediary contractor. It was contended that contractor might have employed a number of workmen who may be in excess of the requirement and, therefore, the principal employer on abolition of the contract labour may be burdened with excess workmen. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. The very condition engrafted in Section 10(2) (d) shows that while abolishing contract labour from the given establishment, one of the relevant considerations for the appreciate Government is to ascertain whether it is sufficient to appoint considerable number of whole time workmen. Even otherwise there is an inbuilt safety valve in Section 21 of the Act which enjoins the principal employer to make payment of wages to the given number of contract workmen who he has permitted to be brought for the work of the establishment if the contractor fails to make payment to them. It is, therefore, obvious that the principal employer as a wordly businessman in his practical commercial wisdom would not allow contractor to bring larger number of contract labour which may be in excess of the requirement of the principal employer. On the contrary, the principal employer would see to it that the contractor brings only those number of workmen who are required to discharge their duties to carry out the work of the principal employer on his establishment through, of course the agency of the contractor. In fact the scheme of the Act and regulations framed thereunder clearly indicate that even the number of the workmen required for the given contract work is to be specified in the licence given to the contractor. Consequently, the aforesaid apprehension projected on behalf of the principal employer is more imaginary than real. Even apart from that, after the absorption of the erstwhile contract workmen by the principal employer on abolition of contract labour system under Section 10, it is always open for the employer as an entrepreneur, in an appropriate case, if the excess working staff is not found to be required by him to retrench such excess staff in accordance with law by following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But that has nothing to do with the moot question as to what is the fate of erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. As rightly observed by Brother Ramaswamy, J. in his judgment, the scheme envisages in the Gujarat Electricity Board’s case is not workable as the existing workmen may not espouse the cause of erstwhile contract workmen who were aspiring to get employment on regular basis and even if they espouse their cause the litigation itself would be spread over a number of years and in the meantime the erstwhile contract labourers and their dependants would starve. I, therefore, wholly agree with Brother Ramaswamy, J. in his view that the scheme envisaged by Gujarat Electricity Board’s case is not workable and to that extent the said judgment cannot be given effect to.
68. Before parting with this judgments, it has to be appreciated that engagement of contract labour has been found to be unjustified by a catena of decisions of this court. When the works is of perennial nature and instead of engaging regular workmen, the system of contract labour is resorted to, it would only be for fulfilling the basic purpose of securing monetary advantage to the principal employer by reducing expenditure on work force. It would obviously be an unfair labour practice and is also an economically short-sighted and unsound policy, both from the point of view of the undertaking concerned and the country as a whole. Such a system was tried to be put to an end by the legislature by enacting the Act but when it found there are certain activities of establishment where the work is not of perennial nature then the contract labour may not be abolished but still it would be required to be regulated so that the lot of the workmen is not rendered miserable. The real scope and ambit of the Act is to abolish contract labour system as far as possible from every establishment. Consequently, on abolition which is the ultimate goal, the erstwhile regulated contract labour cannot be thrown out of establishment as tried to be submitted on behalf of the management taking resort to the express language of Section 10 of the Act. Such a conclusion reached by the two-Member Bench in Dena Nath’s case (supra), files in the face of the very scope and ambit of the Act and frustrates the very scheme of abolition of contract labour envisaged by the Act. Such a conclusion, with respect, cannot be countenanced, as it results in a situation where relatives of the patient are told by the operating surgeon that operation is successful but patient has died.
69.So far as the judgment of the three-Member Bench of this Court in R.K. Panda & Ors. v. Steel Authority of India & Ors. JT 1994 (4) SC 151 = 1994 (5) SCC 304, is concerned, it is true that in para 6 of the Report in the last four lines it is observed while referring to Dena Nath’s case (supra) that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of the contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer, but that is not the ratio of the decision of the said three-Member Bench. It has only referred to what Dena Nath’s case decided. It is also required to be noted that the question which has been posed for our consideration is as to what is the fate of the erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system in the establishment under Sections 10 of the Act. Such a question had not come up for consideration before this Court in R.K. Panda’s case (supra). Therefore, it could not be urged that the ratio of Dena Nath’s case was approved by three-Member Bench in R.K. Panda’s case (supra). In the latter case no abolition was directed by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act. It was a case in which the contract labourers were claiming to be absorbed directly by the principal employer without there being any order under Section 10. Consequently, the question with which we are concerned in the present case did not fall for consideration of the Bench in R.K. Panda’s case (supra), nor had the Bench decided that question one way or the other. I, therefore, respectfully concur with the view taken by Brother Ramaswamy, J. on the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act and hold that on abolition of contract labour system from any establishment under Section 10 of the Act by the appropriate Government the logical and legitimate consequences thereof will be that the erstwhile regulated contract labour covered by the sweep of such abolition for the concerned activities would be entitled to be treated as direct employees of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and they would be entitled to be treated as regular employees at least from the day on which the contract labour system in the establishment for the work which they were doing gets abolished.
66.I have gone through the lucid and erudite judgment prepared by learned Brother Ramaswamy, J. I wholly concur with what has been held therein. I endorse each and every conclusion to which my learned Brother Ramaswamy, J. has reached. However, as the fate of erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has always raised a vaxed question before the High Courts and before this Court, I have thought it fit to pen my observations on this question. It is true that a Bench of two-Judges of this Court to which I was a party in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. JT 1995 (4) SC 264 = 1995 (5) SCC 27 in the light of earlier judgment of two-Judges’ Bench of this Court in the case of Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. JT 1991 (4) SC 413 = 1992 (1) SCC 695 had to soften the rigour of the latter decision, by trying to evolve a locus paenitentiae for contract labourers on abolition of their contract labour from the establishment. But on further consideration it is found, as rightly held by Brother Ramaswamy, J., that such a scheme would not be workable. Under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) twin methodology had been adopted by the legislature. In the first instance, it sought to regulate contract labour employed in any establishment wherein such labour was not of a perennial nature but has to be regulated so that the right to life available to workmen as per Article 21 would not be rendered illusory. Various welfare measures have been provided by the Act in connection with such regulations. The contract workers who are engaged by the contractor for the benefit of the principal employer are brought within the beneficial sweep of Chapter V of the Act. Section 16 deals with provision of canteens for such workmen. Section 17 deals with rest-rooms. Section 18 enjoins the contractor employing such contract labour in connection with work of such establishment to provide sufficient supply of wholesome drinking water as well as sufficient number of latrines and urinals of the prescribed types and washing facilities. Section 19 enables such contract labour to get first aid facilities to be provided in the establishment. Section 20 imposes on the principal employer liability to discharge the obligations regarding providing of amenities as laid down by Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in the establishment, if the contractor defaults in his duties. Section 21 enjoins the principal employer to see to it that proper wages are paid to such contract labour and to nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages as laid down by Section 21. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 makes the principal employer liable to pay such wages to the contract labourers if the contractor fails to make payment of their wages, and then to recover the same from the contractor. Chapter VI deals with penalties and procedure for enforcement of these welfare measures for the benefit of the contract labourers who are brought within the regulatory sweep of the Act. This is one facet of the Act. The other object of the Act is to abolish the contract labour system. In cases where the contract labour is employed on a work which is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment of the principal employer. As per Section 10(2) of the Act, once conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the appropriate Government on the report of the Advisory Board has to abolish contract labour system from each process, operation or other work in an establishment. The conditions for undertaking such an exercise by such Government in connection with the establishment of principal employer are laid down by Section 10(2) clauses (a) to (d). These conditions clearly indicate that the work which the contract labourers are doing is of a perennial nature and is incidental to or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment and it is otherwise done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto and it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen. Once these conditions are established, on the basis of the report of the advisory board concerned, it is an obligation of the appropriate Government to abolish such contract labour system prevailing in the given process or operation in the establishment.
67. Now the moot question is as to what happens after such prohibition. It is obvious that prior to abolition, the contract labour doing work of perennial nature on the establishment of principal employer had the advantage of regulatory provisions found in Chapter V and these provisions were given teeth by the legislature in Chapter VI by providing for penalties and procedure for imposition of sanctions by prosecution. The question is whether after abolition of contract labour system, the contract labourers who were earlier having regulatory protections would be rendered persona non grata and would be thrown out from the establishment and told off the gates. Then in such a case the remedy of abolition of contract labour would be worse than the disease and it has to be held that the legislature while trying to improve the lot of erstwhile contract labourers who are doing work of perennial nature for the principal employer and are doing work which is otherwise to be done by regular workmen had really left them in the lurch by making them lose all the facilities available to contract labour on the establishment as per Chapter V and desired them to wash their hands off the establishment and get out and face starvation. It is axiomatic that if they continued to be contract labourers their wages would have been guaranteed under Section 21 of the Act with an obligation on the principal employer to pay them if the contractor fails to discharge his obligation in connection with payment of wages. Wages are the livelihood of workmen and his large number of dependents. If on abolition of contract labour system, contract labour itself is to be abolished, it would cause economic ruin and economic death to contract labourer and his dependents for amelioration of whose lot order under Section 10 is to be passed. If it is held that on abolition of contract labour system, the erstwhile contract labourers are to be thrown out of the establishment lock, stock and barrel, it would amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. That obviously cannot be the scope, ambit and purport of Section 10 of the Act. It has to be kept in view that contract labour system in an establishment is a tripartite system. In between contract workers and the principal employer is the intermediary contractor and because of this intermediary the emploer is treated as principal employer with various statutory obligations flowing from the Act in connection with regulation of the working conditions of the contract labourers who are brought by the intermediary contractor on the principal’s establishment for the benefit and for the purpose of the principal employer and who do his work on his establishment through the agency of the contractor. When these contract workers carry out the work of the principal employer which is of a perennial nature and if provisions of Section 10 get attracted and such contract labour system in the establishment gets abolished on fulfilment of the conditions requisite for that purpose, it is obvious that the intermediary contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term ‘principal employer’. Unless there is a contractor agent there is no principal. Once the contractor intermediary goes the term ‘principal’ also goes with it. Then remains out of this tripartite contractual scenario only two parties – the beneficiaries of the abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for these erstwhile contract labourers. It was urged that Section 10 nowhere provides for such a contingency in express term. It is obvious that no such express provision was required to be made as the very concept of abolition of a contract labour system wherein the work of the contract labour is of perennial nature for the establishment and which otherwise would have been done by regular workmen, would posit improvement of the lot of such workmen and not its worsening. Implicit in the provision of Section 10 is the legislature intent that on abolition of contract labour system, the erstwhile contract-workmen would become direct employees of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and were enjoying all the regulatory facilities on that very establishment under Chapter V prior to the abolition of such contract labour system. Though the legislature has expressly not mentioned the consequences of such abolition, but the very scheme and ambit of Section 10 of the Act clearly indicates the inherent legislative intent of making the erstwhile contract labourers direct employees of the employer on abolition of the intermediary contractor. It was contended that contractor might have employed a number of workmen who may be in excess of the requirement and, therefore, the principal employer on abolition of the contract labour may be burdened with excess workmen. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. The very condition engrafted in Section 10(2) (d) shows that while abolishing contract labour from the given establishment, one of the relevant considerations for the appreciate Government is to ascertain whether it is sufficient to appoint considerable number of whole time workmen. Even otherwise there is an inbuilt safety valve in Section 21 of the Act which enjoins the principal employer to make payment of wages to the given number of contract workmen who he has permitted to be brought for the work of the establishment if the contractor fails to make payment to them. It is, therefore, obvious that the principal employer as a wordly businessman in his practical commercial wisdom would not allow contractor to bring larger number of contract labour which may be in excess of the requirement of the principal employer. On the contrary, the principal employer would see to it that the contractor brings only those number of workmen who are required to discharge their duties to carry out the work of the principal employer on his establishment through, of course the agency of the contractor. In fact the scheme of the Act and regulations framed thereunder clearly indicate that even the number of the workmen required for the given contract work is to be specified in the licence given to the contractor. Consequently, the aforesaid apprehension projected on behalf of the principal employer is more imaginary than real. Even apart from that, after the absorption of the erstwhile contract workmen by the principal employer on abolition of contract labour system under Section 10, it is always open for the employer as an entrepreneur, in an appropriate case, if the excess working staff is not found to be required by him to retrench such excess staff in accordance with law by following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But that has nothing to do with the moot question as to what is the fate of erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. As rightly observed by Brother Ramaswamy, J. in his judgment, the scheme envisages in the Gujarat Electricity Board’s case is not workable as the existing workmen may not espouse the cause of erstwhile contract workmen who were aspiring to get employment on regular basis and even if they espouse their cause the litigation itself would be spread over a number of years and in the meantime the erstwhile contract labourers and their dependants would starve. I, therefore, wholly agree with Brother Ramaswamy, J. in his view that the scheme envisaged by Gujarat Electricity Board’s case is not workable and to that extent the said judgment cannot be given effect to.
68. Before parting with this judgments, it has to be appreciated that engagement of contract labour has been found to be unjustified by a catena of decisions of this court. When the works is of perennial nature and instead of engaging regular workmen, the system of contract labour is resorted to, it would only be for fulfilling the basic purpose of securing monetary advantage to the principal employer by reducing expenditure on work force. It would obviously be an unfair labour practice and is also an economically short-sighted and unsound policy, both from the point of view of the undertaking concerned and the country as a whole. Such a system was tried to be put to an end by the legislature by enacting the Act but when it found there are certain activities of establishment where the work is not of perennial nature then the contract labour may not be abolished but still it would be required to be regulated so that the lot of the workmen is not rendered miserable. The real scope and ambit of the Act is to abolish contract labour system as far as possible from every establishment. Consequently, on abolition which is the ultimate goal, the erstwhile regulated contract labour cannot be thrown out of establishment as tried to be submitted on behalf of the management taking resort to the express language of Section 10 of the Act. Such a conclusion reached by the two-Member Bench in Dena Nath’s case (supra), files in the face of the very scope and ambit of the Act and frustrates the very scheme of abolition of contract labour envisaged by the Act. Such a conclusion, with respect, cannot be countenanced, as it results in a situation where relatives of the patient are told by the operating surgeon that operation is successful but patient has died.
69.So far as the judgment of the three-Member Bench of this Court in R.K. Panda & Ors. v. Steel Authority of India & Ors. JT 1994 (4) SC 151 = 1994 (5) SCC 304, is concerned, it is true that in para 6 of the Report in the last four lines it is observed while referring to Dena Nath’s case (supra) that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of the contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer, but that is not the ratio of the decision of the said three-Member Bench. It has only referred to what Dena Nath’s case decided. It is also required to be noted that the question which has been posed for our consideration is as to what is the fate of the erstwhile contract labour on abolition of contract labour system in the establishment under Sections 10 of the Act. Such a question had not come up for consideration before this Court in R.K. Panda’s case (supra). Therefore, it could not be urged that the ratio of Dena Nath’s case was approved by three-Member Bench in R.K. Panda’s case (supra). In the latter case no abolition was directed by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act. It was a case in which the contract labourers were claiming to be absorbed directly by the principal employer without there being any order under Section 10. Consequently, the question with which we are concerned in the present case did not fall for consideration of the Bench in R.K. Panda’s case (supra), nor had the Bench decided that question one way or the other. I, therefore, respectfully concur with the view taken by Brother Ramaswamy, J. on the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act and hold that on abolition of contract labour system from any establishment under Section 10 of the Act by the appropriate Government the logical and legitimate consequences thereof will be that the erstwhile regulated contract labour covered by the sweep of such abolition for the concerned activities would be entitled to be treated as direct employees of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and they would be entitled to be treated as regular employees at least from the day on which the contract labour system in the establishment for the work which they were doing gets abolished.
