Dharmadhikari, J.:— In this writ petition the petitioner, National Organic Chemical Industries, Ltd., has challenged the notification, dated 7 May, 1985, issued by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting employment of contract labour in the process, operation and other works specified in column (3) of the schedule to the notification.

2. According to the petitioner-company, it carries on business of manufacturing petro-chemicals. This petro-chemicals complex was started in collaboration with Royal Dutch Shell Group of Companies, Holland. The processes, technology, works system, etc., in the plant was based on prevalent practice in comparable industries in India and also abroad. It is also the case of the petitioner that their activities could be compared with the activities of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd., Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Rashtriya Chemicals, and Fertilizers, Ltd., Hindustan Organic Chemicals, Ltd., CAPI, Herdillia Chemicals, Ltd., Union Carbide India, Ltd, etc. Since the main business of the company is manufacture of petro chemicals it has been the consistent policy of the petitioner-company not to engage labour through outside agencies or contractors. The petitioner-company employed regular employees for the purpose of plant operations, maintenance of the plants and allied services like purchases, stores and accounts, etc. These activities relate to the main business of manufacturing and selling of petro-chemicals. However, there are certain operations and works which do not form part of the main business of the petitioner-company and which strictly speaking cannot even be regarded as ancillary processes. These operations require engagements of temporary hands for temporary durations. They are not permanent in nature but are by their very nature intermittent, sporadic and casual. It is the common practice in industries like those of petitioners to entrust such casual and intermittent works to contractors who have specialised in doing these particular type of works with their expertise. Therafter the petitioners have given details of these activities and processes.

3. It then appears that the Association of the Chemical Workers, Thane, representing the contract labourers in the petitioner-company submitted a representation to the Government of Maharashtra on 3 February, 1981, demanding abolition of contract labour system in the company in the project/construction work, shut down maintenance., work for cleaning, intermittent cleaning, waste clearance, painting, general cleaning, transport services, canteen services, etc. On that basis the matter was placed before the Contract Labour Advisory Board. This Advisory Board included three representatives of the principal employers, two representatives of contractors, five representatives of workers, the Commissioner of Labour as an ex officio Member and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as Member-Secretary. The Chairman of the Board was the Minister of State for Labour. A preliminary report was obtained by the Board from the department in respect of the contract labour system existing in the petitioner-company as well as regarding wages of contract labour, their conditions of service and nature of job, etc. The complaint or the demand made by the union was sent to the company and the company was requested to submit its say. The company thereafter duly submitted its comments. Ultimately on the basis of the material placed on record and after hearing both sides, the Advisory Board was satisfied that there existed a case for abolition of the contract system qua certain jobs. Therefore, the Board recommended to the Government that the contract labour system should be abolished in the petitioner-company qua the jobs specified in the recommendation. Thereafter the Government examined the recommendation of the Board and issued the notification.

4. Sri Damania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that in the complaint made by the union, dated 3 August, 1984, the union had prayed for abolition of contract labour qua works carried on in certain departments, i.e, transport, canteen maintenance, wash and wear and sweepers. This demand of the union was restricted to those jobs only whereas the notification travels beyond it and, therefore, the impugned notification is illegal. It was also contended by him that while issuing the impugned notification none of the factors enumerated in Ss. 10(2) to 10(2)(d) were considered by the Government nor there was any material on record, from which a conclusion could have been drawn by the Board or Government that abolition of contract labour was necessary in the said departments. It was then contended that even in the report submitted by the Labour Department to the Advisory Board, abolition of contract labour in certain departments was not recommended. While making the recommendation neither the Board nor the Government has made any reference to the reports submitted by the officers of the Labour Department. Thus according to Sri Damania the notification issued is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. It is also in contravention of S. 10(2) of the Act. It is then contended by him that the said notification is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as similar other industries in the field are not covered by the said notification.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri Gokhale, learned A.G.P and Miss Buch learned counsel appearing for the employees that the petitioner-company was given enough opportunity to put forward its case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the notification issued is in contravention of principles of natural justice. The criteria laid down by S. 10(2) was duly considered by the Advisory Board as well as the Government. Section 10(2) contemplates that before issuing a notification under Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 of the said Act, 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. The factors referred to in Cls. (a) to (d) are illustrative and not exhaustive. If any one of the said factors is satisfied and it is established that conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment are not to the advantage of the employees, then the notification under S. 10(1) could be issued. In support of this contention the learned counsel have placed strong reliance upon the following decisions:

(1) Nichani Hotels Corporation v. Bombay Labour Union [1981—II L.L.N 247].

(2) Gupta (J.P) v. Union of India [1981 L. & I.C 641].

(3) Deshmukh (S.B) v. State [1986-I L.L.N 601].

(4) State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, (1977) 4 SCC 471 : [A.I.R 1978 S.C 215].

(5) B.H.E.L Workers' Association, Hardwar v. Union of India [1985-I L.L.N 596].

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that even otherwise the criteria laid down by S. 10 is wholly satisfied in the present case and, therefore, on the basis of mere technical objections the notification issued cannot be quashed.

6. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, we have gone through the relevant material. It is contended by Sri Damania that before a notification could be issued under S. 10(1) of the Act, the criteria laid down under S. 10 including Sub-Cls. (a) to (d) must be satisfied. According to him this position is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Catering Clearners of Southern Railway v. Union of India [1987—I L.L.N 480] and Vegoils Private. Ltd. v. Workmen [1972 — L. & I. C 760]. However, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in these decisions the scope of S. 10(2) as such, was not considered by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the said decisions cannot be said to be authorities for the proposition that unless all the requirements referred to in Ss. 10(2)(a) to 10(2)(d) are satisfied a notification under S. 10(1) cannot be issued.

7. In Vegoils case [1972 L. & I.C 760] (vide supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:

“31. The following points emerge from S. 10(1).

(1) The appropriate Government has power to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment;

(2) Before issuing a notification prohibiting contract labour, the appropriate Government has to consult the Central or State Board as the case may be, which we have already pointed out, comprises of the representatives of the workmen, contractor and the industry.

(3) Before issuing any notification under Sub-sec. (1), prohibiting the employment of contract labour, the appropriate Government is bound to have regard not only to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in a particular establishment, but also other relevant factors enumerated in Cls. (a) to (d) of Sub-secs. (2) and (4) under the explanation which really relates to Cl. (b), the decision of the appropriate Government on the question whether any process, operation or other work is of perennial nature, shall be final.”

Then again in Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway case [1987— I L.L.N 480] (vide supra), the Supreme Court observed in Para. 10, at page 487 that:

“On the facts presented to us and on the report of the Parliamentary Committee of Petitions it appears to be clear that the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars is necessary and incidental to the industry or business of the Southern Railway and so requirement (a) of S. 10(2) is satisfied, that it is of a perennial nature and so requirement (b) is satisfied, that the work is done through regular workmen in most railways in the country and so requirement (c) is satisfied and that the work requires the employment of sufficient number of whole-time workmen and so requirement (d) is also satisfied. Thus all the relevant factors mentioned in S. 10(2) appear to be satisfactorily accounted for. In addition we have the factor of profitability of the catering establishments…”

Thus from these observations of the Supreme Court, it appears that before issuing a notification under S. 10(1) of the Act, Government should be satisfied that the conditions contemplated by Ss. 10(2) are complied. In the present writ petition it is the case of the respondent-Government that all the requirements of Ss. 10(2)(a) to 10(2)(d) are satisfied. In the notification itself such a satisfaction is incorporated. Similar statement is made in the affidavit-in-reply also. Therefore, it is not necessary to decide any wider question.

8. So far as the challenge based on contravention of principles of natural justice is concerned, we do not find any substance in the grievance made by the company in that behalf. If the contention raised by the company is tested with the averments made in the petition, it is more than clear that the petitioner-company was given enough opportunity of being heard and to put forward its case. Vide letter, dated 15 January, 1980, the company had submitted the particulars about the nature of work in which contract labour is engaged and also details regarding service conditions offered by the contractors to contract labourers. Thereafter by a further letter, dated 22 July, 1981, which came to be written after the discussion which the representative of the company had with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, further information was supplied. Reports were also called for from the Labour Department. Thereafter also by a letter, dated 29 September, 1982, further details were supplied by the company regarding contract jobs. From the minutes of the Board's meeting it is clear that enough opportunity was given to the representative of the company to put forward its case before the Board. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner-company to put forward its case before the Board.

9. A contention was also raised by Sri Damania that the notification issued by the Government is not a speaking one. No reasons are disclosed in the notification for issuing such a notification. According to him even the decision taken by the Board is not a speaking or reasoned one. We do not find any substance in this contention also. The decision taken by the Board is reflected in the minutes of the meeting. In the minutes a reference is made to the discussion which took place in the meetings as well as material which was placed before the Board. The minutes of the Board were forwarded to the Government. The decision of the Board or the notification issued by the Government on that basis cannot be equated with a judgment of a Court. If it is demonstrated that the recommendation of the Board or ultimate notification are based on relevant material and all the relevant factors were duly considered by the Board as well as Government then in our view the notification issued under S. 10(1) cannot be challenged only because the notification does not give reasons for its decision. Section 10(1) contemplates that before issuing a notification. Central or the State Board, as the case may be, should be consulted. This consultation should be effective and meaningful. If the notification is issued after meaningful and effective consultation with the Board, then it cannot be said that the notification issued is not in accordance with law only because it is not a speaking one or it does not disclose detailed reasons.

10. As already observed the notification under S. 10(1) of the Act is issued after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Cls. (a) to (d) of Sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act. Recommendation of the Board was communicated to the Government through the Commissioner of Labour on 7 November, 1984, for taking further action. Prior to this final recommendation, questions raised by the law and judiciary department were also considered and a further report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Said officer submitted further report on 11 September, 1984. It was placed before the Board on 24 September, 1984, and thereafter decision of the Board was communicated to the Government. The Government in its turn examined the recommendation of the Board and the other relevant material, and took a decision to prohibit the employment of contract labour in certain processes, operation and works in the establishment of the petitioner-company and ultimately issued the impugned notification on 7 May, 1985. The said notification reads as under:

“INDUSTRIES, ENERGY AND LABOUR DEPARMENT

Mantralaya, Bombay-400 032, dated 7 May, 1985.

CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970.

No. CLA 1084/598.LAB/-12—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the Government of Maharashtra, after consultation with the State Advisory Contract Labour Board and having regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors such as referred to in Cls. (a) to (d) (both inclusive) of the Sub-sec (2) of the said S. 10, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour in the process, operation and other work specified in column (3) of the schedule hereto in the establishment mentioned in column (2) of that schedule:

Schedule

Serial No. Name & Address of the establishment Details of process, operation and its work 1 2 3 1 National Organic Chemicals Industries, Ltd., Belapur Road, Thane. (i) General, cleaning, removal of garbage, grass cutting and road cleaning. (ii) Cleaning of equipments, pipeline work, erection of equipments.

(iii) Project work, fabrication work equipment cleaning during shut down period. (iv) Canteen.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra

Under Secretary to Government.”

11. In view of the contentions raised before us it will have to be seen as to whether there was enough material before the Government as well as the Board to come to the conclusion that the processes, operation and the works specified in column (3) of the schedule to the notification required abolition of contract labour. According to the petitioner-company none of the processes, operation or works specified in the notification satisfy the criteria laid down by Cls. (a) to (d) of S. 10(2) of the said Act. On the other hand it is contended by the respondents that the criteria laid down in Ss. 10(2)(a) to 10(2)(d) are duly satisfied. It appears from record that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane, was directed to make a detailed investigation in regard to the employment of contract labour system in the petitioner-company. Accordingly an investigation was carried out by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and, thereafter the matter was also discussed with the representative of the management as well as the workmen. A spot inquiry was also made and the concerned contractors were also contacted. The officers concerned had also collected the required data and then submitted a detailed report vide letter, dated 24 August, 1981. It appears from the said report that the union had no objection in giving the project and construction work to outside agency. On 11 September, 1984, qua each item the Deputy Commissioner of Labour submitted a further report. As per this report the processes and works enumerated in the notification are regular processes and are necessary for running the establishment. The contract work is being supervised by the factory supervisors. The operations like general cleaning, removing garbage, grass cutting, road cleaning and canteen are also of permanent nature, and of sufficient duration and the contract labour in these operations are doing this work since last so many years., It was also observed therein that there would be sufficient work for canteen and cleaning employees, if permanent labourers are employed. The work of canteen and cleaning can be provided on full-time basis, and the financial condition of the principal employer appears to be sound. Therefore, so far as item (1) is concerned, i.e, general cleaning, removal of garbage, grass cutting and road cleaning, which includes cleaning, etc., of housing colonies also, there was enough material before the Advisory Board as well as the Government to come to the conclusion for prohibiting the employment of contract labour in that behalf. Similar is the position so far as the cleaning of equipments is concerned, which is referred to in item (2). So far as canteen is concerned, it is obviously obligatory on the part of the petitioner-company to run a canteen in view of the provisions of the Factories Act. It does appear that the Government has not taken any general policy in this behalf, i.e, as to whether a canteen in all factories should be run departmentally and/or could be allowed to be run by the contractors. But there is material on record to show that in some of the industries canteens are also run depart-mentally. Exhibit 16 is a statement showing the jobs which are being carried out by the regular workers, in the establishments enumerated therein. This includes canteens also. Therefore, qua item (4), i.e, canteen there was enough material before the Advisory Board as well as the Government to come to the conclusion that the contract labour system should be abolished in that behalf.

12. So far as other items are concerned, apart from the claim and counter-claim made by the employees and employer, we have on record a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane. Sri Gokhale, learned Additional Government Pleader, was not able to show that qua the project work, fabrication work, pipelines work or erection of equipments work, there was any material on record to indicate that the conditions laid down by S. 10(2) are satisfied. On the other hand the material and the evidence is otherwise. However, according to him the equipment cleaning during the shut down period is periodical work carried on through the workers of the contractors and it does not require any expertise. It appears that there are two types of shut downs. One is regular or periodical and planned shut down; another is unexpected or shut down of entire plant. From the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour it is clear that the work of equipment cleaning during the shut down period is undertaken periodically, of individual machine or department and it goes on round the year by rotation. From the work orders and the jobs done by the contractors it is clear that since the work is of overlapping nature the workers employed by the contractors are engaged continuously. Therefore, in substance, it is a part of equipment cleaning. Hence it cannot be said that there was no material before the Board or the Government to come to the relevant conclusion. However, it is clarified that said entry will take in its import, planned normal, regular, turn by turn or rotation shut downs only. It will not include unexpected shut down or break down of vital equipments, or shut down of entire plant, etc.

13. So far as the part of item (2), i.e, pipelines work, erection of equipments, and part of item (3) relating to project work, fabrication work is concerned, we find that there was no material either before the Advisory board or the Government to indicate that the requirements of Ss. 10(2)(a) to 10(2)(d) were satisfied in that behalf. From the bare reading of the notification it is quite clear that the notification was issued by the Government since it came to the conclusion that all the relevant factors referred to in Cls. (a) to (d) of Sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 the said Act were satisfied. Once it is held that there was no material on record qua this part of the notification, then to that extent the conclusion reached by the Advisory Board as well as the Government must get vitiated. The notification being severable, this will not affect that part of the notification which is held to be good. Section 10(1) of the Act contemplates prohibition of contract labour in any process, operation or other works in any establishment. The notification also enumerates the process, operation and the works in which contract labour is sought to be prohibited. This enumeration is also distinct and separate. Therefore, even if the notification is held to be bad qua certain operations or works, that will not affect that validity of that part of the notification which is held to be good and valid.

14. So far as the challenge based on Art. 14 is concerned we do not find any substance in the said contention. Section 10 provides for prohibition of employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Therefore, prohibition of employment of contract labour is contemplated qua an establishment. Then Sub-sec. (2) lays down that before issuing a notification under Sub-sec. (1) of S. 10 of the said Act 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. Therefore, an action under S. 10, is contemplated establishmentwise. In the present case a complaint was made by the union of the employees in the petitioner's establishment. It no complaint is made qua other establishments, then it cannot be said that all of them stand on the same footing. It is the scrutiny of individual establishment which is contemplated by S. 10. Therefore, only because a notification is not issued qua other establishments, it cannot be said that there is a hostile discrimination. Unless it is established or shown that similar circumstances exist in other similar establishments and the Government has chosen petitioner-establishment mala fide, the challenge based on Art. 14 may not be available to the petitioner-company. In these circumstances, we do not find any substance in this contention.

15. Hence rule is made partly absolute. The notification, dated 7 May, 1985, issued under S. 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is held valid qua item (1) as a whole, item (2) qua cleaning of equipments, item (3) qua equipment cleaning during the shut down period, as clarified, and item (4) qua canteen. It stands set aside qua part of item (2), i.e, pipeline work, erection of equipments and item (3), i.e, project work and fabrication. However, the respondent-Government will be at liberty to reconsider the question over again so far as the said items are concerned. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

16. Before parting with this judgment we would like to observe that the practice followed by the Government to scrutinise cases of those industries only where complaints are made by the union is not salutary since in unorganised section where there is no strong union, the employees may not complain at all. Only because there is no complaint, the State Government is not absolved of its responsibility of enforcing the Act. In this writ petition a reference is made by the petitioner-company to the establishments which according to them are similarly situated, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers, Ltd., Hindustan Organic Chemicals, Ltd., etc. We are told that some of them are public undertakings or governmental companies. To say the least, public undertakings should be the model employers, Therefore, the Government will be well advised to scrutinise the cases of these and other similar establishments also.

17. Petitioner is granted eight weeks time from today to implement that part of the notification, which is upheld by this Court.