Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Prohibition of employment of contract labour.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as— (a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment; (b) whether it 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 that establishment; (c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto; (d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. Explanation.—If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. COMMENTS (i) It is the scrutiny of individual establishment which is contemplated by section 10 of the Act. There is no hostile discrimination; National Organic Chemical Industry Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) II LLN 817 (Bom). The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (ii) The power of the appropriate Government under section 10 is not affected or curtailed in any manner by section 119 of the Factories Act, 1948; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Bhadarachalam Paper Board Ltd., (1990) 76 FJR 58 (AP). (iii) The decision regarding the prohibition of employment of contract labour is no doubt with the appropriate Government but this decision is subject to judicial review; Zenith Industrial Service v. Union of India, (1990) 1 LLJ 38 (Ori). (iv) Consultation with the Central Advisory Board is mandatory; Tata Refractories Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992) II LLJ 810 (Ori). (v) The Act does not provide for a total abolition of contract labour but it provides for abolition of contract labour in appropriate cases; Deena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 LLR 46 (SC). (vi) There is no automatic absorption of the labourers in the regular employment; T. Chandra Mohan Nair v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., 1994 LLR 626 (Ker). (vii) Provisions of section 10(2) of this Act are mandatory. Amendment Act No. 14 of 1988 cannot have retrospective effect; FCI Class IV Employees’ Union v. F.CJ., (1994) II LLJ 102 (P & H). (viii) The primary object of the Act is to stop exploitation of contract labourers by contractor or establishment. The Act does not purport to abolish contract labour in its entirety; R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India, (1994) 69 FLR 256 (SC). (ix) It is only the appropriate Government which has the authority to abolish contract labour system and not the court including the industrial adjudicator; Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995 LLR 552 (SC). (x) An industrial dispute can be raised for abolition of contract labour system; Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995 LLR 552 (SC). (xi) On issuance of prohibition under section 10(1) of the Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conduct of service Industrial Adjudicator will have to be interpose on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder; Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2003 (2) LLJ 102 (Del). CHAPTER IV LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS