Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-Constitutional validity of-Scope and application of Validity of the Rules made under the Act. Interpretation of statutes-ejusdem generis.

The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, requires contractors to take out licenses. The Act also imposes certain duties and liabilities on the contractor, in respect of the workmen employed by the contractors. The Contractor is defined as a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment through contract labour or who supplied contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. It was contended that the application of the Act is in respect of pending work of construction amounts to unreasonable restriction on the right of the contractors violating article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was further contended that the fees prescribed for registration, licences, or renewal of licences amount to a tax and are, therefore, beyond the rule-making powers of the Central and State Government. It was further contended that the provisions of the Act are unconstitutional and unreasonable because of impracticability of implementation. Provisions in regard to canteens, rest rooms, latrines and urinals as contemplated by sections 16 and 17 of the Act read with Central Rules 40 to 56 and rule 25(2) (vi) are incapable of implementation and enormously expensive as to amount to unreasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g). The provisions contain in Central Rule 25(2)(v)(b) were challenged as unreasonable. Rule 25 (2)(v)(a) provides that wages and other conditions of service of workmen who do same or similar kind of work as the workmen employed directly in the principal employer's establishment shall be the same. In case of disagreement it is provided that the same shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner whose decision shall be final. Rule 25(2)(b) states that in other cases the wage rates holidays and conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor would be such as may be specified by the Chief Labour Commissioner. There is no provision for appeal.

It was also contended that the provisions in section 14 with regard to forfeiture of security are unconstitutional. The validity of rule 24 which requires deposit of Rs. 30/- per workmen is challenged as void under Articles 14 and 19(1)(1) both on the ground that the same is arbitrary and also because there is no obligation on the Government to pay to the workmen or to utilise for the workmen any part of the security deposit so forfeited. It was also contended that section 34 of the Act which empowers the Central Government to make any provision not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for removal of difficulty is unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation. The intervener challenged section 28 of the Act conferring power on the Government to appoint Inspectors as conferring arbitrary and unguided power.

It was also contended that the petitioners were not contractors within the meaning of the Act since the work of the petitioner is not any part of the work of the principal employer nor was the work normally done in the premises of the establishment of the principal employer.