Dr. Damodar Panda Etc. v. State of Orissa Etc. (1990 INSC 203)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 16 July 1990
Bench: Ranganath Misra, Kuldip Singh
Result: Petitions disposed of.

Headnote

Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and '>--. Conditions of Service) Act, 1979: Section 20

Provisions of the ActJmplementation of-Direction by Supreme Court-Officers of originating State of Migrant Labour-Can hold enquiries within the limits of the Recepient State for enforcement of the Act.

In these petitions on the question: as to how the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condi- --'. tion of Service) Act, 1979 can be enforced.

Disposing the Writ Petitions, this Court, HELD: 1. Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employ-ment and l:onditions of Service) Act, 1979 is a beneficial legislation for satisfying the provisions of the Constitution and the obligation in inter-national agreements to which India is a party. There is no valid justifi- '-<-- cation for not permitting the officers of the Originating State to hold appropriate enquiries in the Recepient State in regard to persons of the Originating State Working as migrant labour in the Recepient State. [39ID-E)

2. To implement the provisions of the Act every State and Union Territory in India would be obliged to permit officers of originating States of migrant labour for holding appropriate inqui-4 ries within the limits of the Recepient States for enforcement of the statute and no Recepient State shall place any embargo or hindrance in such process. [391GJ

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

One of the matters which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to how the provisions of the inter-state Migrant Work-men (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, and particularly of section 20 thereof can be enforced. In the affiilavit filed by the Union of India in the Ministry of Labour it has been stated that in view of the scheme contained in secnon 20(3) of the Act that officer of the Originating State can make enquiries within the Rece-pient State provided the Recepient State agrees to such Officers of the Originating State operating within that State, the law has not become workable in a proper way. This is a beneficial legislation for satisfying the provisions of the Constitution and the obligation in international agreements to which India is a party. We do not think there can be any valid justification for not permitting the officers of the Originating State to hold appropriate enquiries in the Recepient State in regard to persons of the Originating State working as migrant labour in the Recepient State. We do not think that there is any necessity to hear the other States before making an ordP,r for enforcing section 20(3) and to give effect to the legislative intention contained therein.

:Mr. Panda appearing for the State of Orissa has agreed that Orissa State has no objection to officers of any originating State hold-ing necessary enquiries within Orissa when it is a Recepient State. We would, therefore, make a direction that to implement the provisions of the Act of 1979 referred to above every State and Union Territory in India would be obliged· to permit Officers of originating States of migrant labour for holding appropriate inquiries within the limits of the Recepient States for enforcement of the statute and no Recepient State shall place any embargo or hindrance in such process. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of every State and Union Territory for compliance.

We are cognizant of the fact that this order has been made with-out hearing the States other than Orissa and the Union Territories. In the event of any State or Union Territory is of the opinion that the -f direction should be modified, liberty is given to apply for modification of the order but until it is modified it shall remain in force. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with this order. No costs.

Case details

Arising from

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 511 of 1988.

WITH

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 975 of 1988. >:-~-

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of!ndia).

K.V. Sreekumar, (N.P.) forthe Petitioners.

V.C. Mahajan, A.K. Panda, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, and Ms. A.

Appearances

Subhashini for the Respondents.

The Court delivered the following Order:

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.