All India Food and Allied Workers'' Union vs State of Haryana and Others

S. Rajendra Babu J.-A writ petition was filed before the High Court for certain reliefs as to continuation of the grant of contract for loading and unloading, handling, transport and labour work in the various godowns of Hafed, Karkfed, Confed, Agro Nafed etc. to the appellant Union directly and not to any contractor from the period from 1-4-1995 onwards. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine.

On the matter being brought up before this Court in these proceedings, on 14-12-1999 the Court directed Respondent 1 State of Haryana to constitute a Committee under Section 5 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to consider whether the contract labour system should be abolished or not and the said Committee was to submit its report to the State Advisory Contract Labour Board as early as possible.

Thereafter, a report was submitted by Respondent 1. Contesting the correctness of this report another report was filed before this Court by the appellant pointing out that there have been certain interpolations and corrections in the report submitted to this Court and did not truly reflect the proceedings of the meetings of the Committee held on different dates. In reply, on behalf of Respondent 1 it is stated that after the meeting was over though the report had been finalised as certain details had not been set out another meeting was held by the members of the Committee concerned and another report was prepared to that effect which has been filed before this Court. However, to that latter report the workmen''s representative is not a signatory. In the report made available to this Court by the appellant all the members of the Committee have signed. When that report was drawn up, signatures of all members were obtained and the meeting was over. That another meeting was held on the same date after that meeting is highly unlikely. When these details have not been brought to the notice of this Court earlier the stand of Respondent 1 looks to be artificial to us and is set up to get over the difficulty of filing an incorrect report before this Court. In the circumstances, the conduct of Respondent 1 is reprehensible. These aspects though disturbing will not solve the problem before us.

We may observe that the Committee which was not constituted made the report is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence that report may not be of much use. Now that the Advisory Board has been constituted under the Act the Government shall refer to it within eight weeks from today the matter for consideration afresh and get an appropriate report in that regard to take a decision under the Act.

Considering the conduct of Respondent 1 we think exemplary cost of Rs 10,000 must be imposed on it. It is open to Respondent 1 to recover the same from the officer concerned Mr Naresh Kumar, if the same is permissible. Till such report is made, status quo shall be maintained. Appeal is allowed accordingly with costs payable by Respondent 1 to the appellants.