DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001

Academic Session (2023-2024)

LABOUR LAW-I

“Gammon India ltd. v. UOI,(1974)”

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Akshay Pal Ms. Isha Paliwal

BALLB/015/21 Assistant Professor of Law
Semester 6th
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"I put a lot of effort into this project. But without the kind backing and help of several
It would never have been possible without the individuals and organizations. I would want to
convey my appreciation to
Our vice-chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Sinha Sir, for providing us with this fantastic
opportunity to
Learn about a topic that has laid the foundation for a very fulfilling experience.
"Ms. Isha Paliwal, a Teaching Associate in Law, has provided guidance and support that I
much appreciate.
continuous supervision in providing the project with the necessary information and assistance
in seeing it
to a conclusion. I want to be grateful to my family, my colleagues, and
friends for their thoughtful help and encouragement in developing the project that made it
possible for me to complete it.
Contents Table

Introduction…………………………………………………..
Gammon India Ltd. vs the Union of India……………………
The petitioner…………………………………………………
Participants……………………………………………………
Bench………………………………………………………….
Acts, Statutes, and Regulations……………………………….
A synopsis of the case's background is given below………….
Concerns that the court is considering......................................
Arguments Made by the Petitioners..........................................
Legal provisions in doubt..........................................................
Evaluation and Interpretation of the Court's Reasons...............
concussion…………………………………………………....
Bibliography…………………………………………………..
Introduction

In a country, the three main functions of the government convey the will of the people.

These are the government's legislative, executive, and judicial branches. These three
functions are carried out by the legislative, the executive, and the the judicial, and the
executive. The state's legislative branch enacts laws, which the executive branch upholds.
them, and the court applies them to the particular circumstances that result from the breaking
of the law. Every organ tends to obstruct another organ's ability to function while carrying out
its functions. functionary as they are unable to strictly define functions in their handling of
the broader public. Consequently, even while operating under their authority, overlapping
roles often show up about these organs. It is often acknowledged that stability in a political
system The people in positions of authority must be counterbalanced with one another. The
idea of separating powers examines the interactions between the three branches of
government, notably legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

This theory seeks to introduce exclusivity into the way that of the three organs, therefore the
goal is to establish a clear division of authority. this idea. This idea states that an individual or
group of individuals should not use all three of the government's powers.

However, it is noted that because to many factors, including the overcrowding on the small
parliamentary time constraints, insufficient knowledge, the need to keep information private,
handling emergencies, etc. Other entities beyond the Legislature perform legislative
responsibilities; they are known as

"Legitimate Delegation"
denotes the use of legislative authority by a body that is
under the legislature. Sometimes, delegated legislation is referred to as "Ancillary."
"Quasi-legislation" or "Subordinate," Administrative Legislation
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, when an instrument of a legislative
Nature is created by an authority using the powers granted by the legislation.
We refer to it as secondary legislation.
The most important turning point in India's embrace of delegated legislation is the
first presidential citation, In Re Delhi Laws Act of 1951

Overstretching Delegation:
In Rayon Co. Gwalior v. Asst. Sales Tax Commissioner
J. KHANNA stated: "The rule
opposing an overabundance of parliamentary delegation originates from and is an essential
presumption of the people's sovereignty. The Supreme Court in Registrar Cooperative
Societies versus K. Punjabi
noted: "Unlimited delegation could foster despotism"
There is no relinquishment of legislative responsibilities as long as the legislature remains
declared its position on a certain issue, specified its guidelines, and left the implementation
as long as the legislature has authority over the policy to subordinate legislation
hand in relation to it in order for it to serve as a standard or a check and stop the mischief
by subordinate law as it deems appropriate or so desires.
Although it is acknowledged that the excessive delegation idea should not be used in a
pedantically because it might be difficult for the legislature to operate in the complicated
reality of today
should clearly define standards or state policy, and authority must be granted to the
In general, administration should create regulations based on the demands of the
circumstances. Still, however
The courts must make sure the concept is not reduced to a meaningless proclamation or an
incantation.
formality. The legislation' policy statements allow the courts to subsequently apply the
concept.
Using ultra vires to more meaningfully and successfully transfer laws.
This Supreme Court decision
is regarded as the cornerstone of India's system of delegated legislation. It addressed a
number of
every facet of delegated law, from word definition to limitation of
a crucial role for legislation.
As stated by J. Mukherjee, "Delegated legislation" is a term that encompasses
bewilderment among the mass. It serves as a justification for lawmakers, a defense for
administrators, and a
provocative remarks to constitutional jurists
Put simply, when legislative powers are delegated to bodies other than the legislature by
Delegated legislation is the term used to describe laws created by these bodies, not the
legislature itself.
In the Indian context, bye-laws, notifications, orders, regulations, and notifications signify
Laws that are delegated. Additionally, the same legislation may use several terms or phrases
to indicate the use of a body administrative's subordinate legislative authority or
agency. Such as "Notification," "Orders," and "Notified Orders" by the Essential
Commodities Act,
1958.

Union of India v. Gammon India Ltd.

Petitioner: India's Gammon Ltd. etc. etc.

Respondent: Union of India and Ors. etc.
Bench:
• N. Ray, John. (CJI)
• P. Reddy, Jaganmohan J.
• S. Dwivedi, N., and J.
• P. Goswami, K., and J.
• Sarkaria, J. Ranjit Singh.
Act, Laws, and Regulations:
• The Act of 1970 that regulated and abolished contract labor (henceforth referred to as
"The Act"
• The Indian Constitution
• The 1971 Central Rules for Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition).

A synopsis of the case's history

In the 1960s, more individuals became aware of the rights and interests of contract laborers.
The government was under tremendous pressure to take action on the regulation of
framework for contract labor and to raise the bar for employees hired under this arrangement
by making certain appropriate pay and working conditions, etc. Thus, in order to achieve this
goal, the t parliament enacted the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and it
was
made applicable to any firm that uses contract labor. After getting struck
negatively impacted by the Act's provisions, petitioners who operated a construction
company
addressed the Court with many arguments contesting the Act's legality.
The Supreme Court's current issues are:
The court was asked to decide and make a determination about the following matters:
1. Whether the petitioners meet the previously stated definition of "contractors"
under the Act's clause 2(c)?
2. Whether the Act's applicability to the ongoing contract imposes unjust
prohibitions that go against the Constitution's article 19 (1) (g)?
3. Whether the amounts required for licenses, registration, or license renewals
to impose a tax that is thus beyond the purview of the Central
and the Government of the State?
4. Whether the Act's provisions—the ones the petitioners argue—are
unreasonable and unconstitutional?
5. Whether the Act's Section 34, which gives the Central government the authority to make
any
provisions for removing difficulties are too delegated, which makes it
not in accordance with the Constitution?
The petitioners' points of contention:
1. The petitioners argued that an establishment is any location where any kind of business,
commerce,
Because manufacturing, business, or employment continues, the workers
The petitioners' employment is not considered contract labor as they are not engaged in
relationship to the establishment's operations. The establishment's work is,
The petitioners claim that not only in the location where the company, commerce, and
industry
When the institution is maintained, in addition to the real trade, business, or industry of
the location. The petitioners emphasize the term "work" above everything else.
of any institution." As an example, it's said that if a banking corporation
This is an organization that operates in Delhi and employs the
petitions to build a structure in Allahabad, however the structure is not
the bank's operations. It is believed that the bank's only function as an organization is
construction activity is not the banking job of the bank, and as a result,
establishment. Thus, the petitioners assert that the employees of the
The applicants are not employed by the organization in any capacity and
Petitioners do not meet the Act's definition of "contractors."
The Act's applicability to ongoing contracts amounts to unjustified limitations.
on contractors' rights as stipulated in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, and as a result,
outside the Constitution.
3. The costs listed for licenses, registration, and licensing renewals total levy
of taxes, which is a legislatively mandated necessity that cannot be assigned. Thus, such a
Delegation extends beyond the federal and state governments' authority to enact laws.
4. It was claimed that the following clauses were unconstitutional:
Canteen, restroom, restroom, and urinal provisions as considered
under the Act's sections 16 through 18, as well as Central Rules 40 through 56 and rule 25(2)
(vi)
are too costly to adopt and too difficult to accomplish, amounting to
unjustified limitations as defined by Article 19 (1) (g).
• It was argued that Central Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) was irrational since it grants a
the Chief Labour Commissioner's discretionary authority, and no clause
of appeal in relation to his choice.
Why The loss of security clause in section 14 is invalid.
• Rule 24, which mandates a deposit of Rs. 30 per worker, is still in effect.
under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) both as null and invalid, on the grounds that the
same is arbitrary, and the government is under no financial duty to
to the employees or to use any portion of the security deposit on behalf of the employees
lost.
5. Additionally, it was argued that Act section 34, which gives the Central
Government can enact any legislation that does not conflict with the Act's provisions for
Removal of difficulties on the grounds of excessive delegation is unlawful.
Sections of the relevant legislation:
1. In connection with an institution, Section 2(c) defines a "contractor" as "a
someone who commits to achieving a certain outcome for the institution, outside from a
just providing such an institution with products or manufactured items, via
hire labor or who provides hire labor for any of the establishment's tasks, and
consists of a subcontractor.
2. "Establishment" is defined in Section 2(e) as "(i) any office or department of the
a local government or authority, or (ii) any location where any enterprise, commerce, or
industry,
manufacturing or employment is maintained.
3. "Principal employer" is defined in Section 2(g) as "(i) with regard to any office or
department of the Government or a local government, the head of such office or
department or another official from the government or local government, depending on the
situation
in this regard, may indicate that (ii) at a factory, the owner or occupant of the
factory and when someone has been designated as the plant manager under the
Factories Act, 1948, the aforementioned individual, (iii) the owner or representative of the
mine, and in cases where an individual has been designated as the mine manager, the
individual thus
identified, and (iv) any individual in charge of supervision at any other institution
and command over the organization.
4. "Workman" is defined in Section 2(i) as any individual engaged in or in conjunction with
using any establishment's labor to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled
physical, managerial, technical, or secretarial labor for pay or benefit, regardless of the
whether it be explicitly stated or inferred.
5. The Act's Section 2(b) specifies that a laborer will be considered engaged as
"contract labour" inside or related to an establishment's operations, when he is
engaged by or via a contractor to do such job, either with or without
the major employer's knowledge.
6. Canteens under Section 16:
(1) The relevant Government may establish regulations mandating that in every
establishment—(a) to which this Act is applicable, and (b) where employment is needed for
the work
of contract labor is probably going to last for the duration that may be specified, and (c)
When a typically employs contract labor in the amount of one hundred or more
contractor, the contractor will provide and maintain one or more canteens.
in order to employ such contract labor.
(2) Notwithstanding the scope of the aforementioned authority, such regulations may provide
for—
(a) the deadline for supplying the canteens;
(b) the quantity of canteens to be supplied, as well as the requirements regarding
building, lodging, furnishings, and additional canteen equipment; and
(c) the food items that might be provided there and the possible fees
consequently.
7. Restrooms in Section 17.
(1) In any location where nighttime work stops for contract laborers due to
with an establishment's labor—
(a) that are covered by this Act, and
(a) if it is anticipated that the work necessitating the use of contract labor would last for
For the duration that may be specified, there will be supplied and upheld by the
contractor for the amount of restrooms or other amenities that will be used by the contract
labor
appropriate substitute housing within any time frame that may be specified.
(2) The restrooms or other accommodations that must be supplied in accordance with
subsection
(1) be kept in a clean and well-ventilated environment, with enough lighting and ventilation.
cozy circumstances.
8. Section 18: Additional facilities: It is the responsibility of each contractor hiring contract
labor related to the operations of an enterprise covered by this Act, to
supply and uphold—
(a) enough clean drinking water available for the contract workers at
handy locations
(b) an adequate quantity of the designated kinds of urinals and latrines placed in such a way
as to
be practical and available to the establishment's contract workers; and
(c) Laundry facilities.
9. Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) When workers engaged by the contractor execute
the same or a comparable kind of labor to that of the employees immediately under the
principle
employer of the business, pay scales, paid time off, holidays, and other
The contractor's workers will be employed under the same terms as those that apply.
to the worker who is directly employed by the establishment's primary employer on
the same or comparable kind of labor
argued that if there was any debate on the nature of the work, the same
will be determined by the Central Chief Labor Commissioner.
10. Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) in other circumstances, the pay scales, vacation days, work hours, and
The contractor's workers will be employed on the terms and circumstances that may be
designated by the Chief Commissioner (Central) in this regard.

Assessment and interpretation of the Court's Reasoning:

Problem 1
The petitioner's argument that they were not included in
the Act's definition of "contractors." The petitioners provided two justifications for their
exclusion: Firstly, the petitioners' job is entirely separate from the principal's activity.
The job that is "in connection with the work of the establishment" is not the employer's work.
major employer and, secondly, the petitioners' task is typically not completed in the
but depending on the definitions, the primary employer's "establishment"
The Act's provisions, upon which the petitioner heavily relied, provide that the
institution" and opined that, given that the laborers' employees are not
hired in relation to the establishment's job; they are not contract laborers.
The petitioners claim that the establishment's operation is not limited to the location where
the
The establishment's trade, business, and industry are all conducted, but in addition to the real
business or
trade or sector of the business.
Problem 2
The court noted that there isn't any unreasonableness in the second problem
applicability of the contested Act's provisions to ongoing contracts. In actuality,
The court determined that the contract's pendency was an immaterial element since the topic
Since the contract laborers are the subject matter of the Act rather than the contract itself,
there is no issue of
backward-looking process.
Additionally, because the petitioners could not provide enough proof to demonstrate that they
would be
negatively impacted by the Act's provisions. The workers' interests were given the
supreme prominence and that the Act's goals remedy them, the court determined that it
All contract laborers should be subject to it without regard to any potential disputes over
pendency.
minimal labor welfare requires the protection of workers' interests, and there is none
unreasonableness in the way it was used.
Problem 3
In addressing the third matter, the court considered the petitioner's argument's merits.
and the Act's purpose.
The ability to levy taxes is seen as a crucial legislative role and is acknowledged as
intrinsic authority of the state. The Constitution's Article 265 states that no tax may be
imposed or
gathered without authorized by law, where "law" refers to a law passed by the knowledgeable
made by the legislative rather than the executive branch. The Supreme Court has said in its
many
ruling that while if the ability to impose taxes is a crucial legislative duty and as such
cannot be assigned. Nevertheless, a portion of it may be assigned, provided that the
The legislative body itself carries out key legislative duties, such as establishing the
rules and regulations pertaining to the imposition of taxes.
The court determined that the costs listed for license application, registration, and renewal do
not
amount to a tax burden. The government must pay for the registration program,
license. Services related to licenses, registration, and fees are provided by the government.
paid for such service cannot be seen as a tax being imposed.
In summary
Contract labor is a substantial and expanding job type that is present in almost every
domain of work, sectors, related businesses, and is also common in the service
sector. Generally speaking, it describes employees hired by a contractor on behalf of another
company.
The government's top worry is the exploitation of contract labor in the workplace.
since contract workers often participate in the social security system, have little negotiating
power, and
risky sectors with inadequate infrastructure and security. To control this system, the
The Contract Labour (Regulation & Prohibition) Act, 1970 was passed by the government in
order to protect the
the position of contract workers and to remove them from certain establishments.

In the instance that this study thoroughly examines and analyzes, the constitutional legality of
After being contested, the aforementioned Contract Labor legislation was upheld by the
highest court.
The parliament's primary responsibility is the welfare of the people, and there is no
unreasonableness in establishing guidelines to preserve people's dignity in the current
in this instance, the Act's contents were a welfare law passed to enhance the
terrible working circumstances of the Contract laborers; hence, the Act's requirements
was deemed to be reasonable and legitimate under the constitution.
The petitioners cited the doctrine of permissible limits under delegated legislation.
about the prescription of fees for license grants, registration, etc., and it was contended
Because as this equates to taxation, it is a "essential legislative function" that cannot be
assigned. Nevertheless, as the goal of the fees' imposition was to charge for the service
supplied and make up for the expenses the legislature spent setting up the systems for
registration and other similar reasons, it was not deemed to be a tax imposition and was
beyond the bounds permitted by delegated law. Additionally, concerning the grant of
The Act established licenses, thorough regulatory rules, and regulations to assign this
authority to issue the executive a license. The ability to appeal in a situation where a party
believes
resentful of any decision that denies them a license is a powerful regulatory instrument to
maintain a
oversight of the executive branch. Since the Parent Act had all of these clauses,
As argued by the petitioners in this case, delegating does not equate to excessive delegation
instance.
List of references

Books mentioned
Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsynth (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2004)
I.P. Massey (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2008) Administrative Law
Treatise on Administrative Law, by M.P. Jain, Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur, 1996

Referred Cases
Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 Air Force Case No. 332
Gwalior Rayon Co. v. Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, AIR 1974 SC 1660
 Reference
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Gammon%20India%20Ltd%28DOT%29%2C%2
0V%20Union%20of%20India
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=gammon%20india%20ltd%20v%20union
%20of%20ind
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Gammon+India+Ltd%28DOT%29%2C+V+Union
+of+India