Delhi High Court Quashes Contract Labour Board's Action On Standard Chartered Bank, Cites Failure To Decide Jurisdictional Objection

The Delhi High Court has set aside a decision of the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board in proceedings concerning Standard Chartered Bank, holding that the Board failed to adjudicate a key jurisdictional objection and did not provide reasons for its decision.A single-judge bench of Justice Shail Jain quashed the Board's decision taken in its 90th meeting directing a committee to proceed with an inquiry into the engagement of contract labour at the bank's Mumbai branches.The Court observed that the bank had specifically objected to the Board's jurisdiction to reopen a matter that had already been closed in 2008, arguing that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not confer any power of review on the Board. However, while the objection was recorded in the minutes, no finding was returned on it.“The Board was not merely required to afford a formal hearing; it was under an obligation to consider and adjudicate the objections raised before it. The requirement of “dealing with” the objections in accordance with law necessarily implies a duty to apply mind and return findings on such objections. Mere noting of submissions cannot be equated with adjudication,” the bench observed.The Court rejected the Board's contention that it was not required to decide the jurisdictional objection at this stage. While it may be correct that the Board was not bound to decide the issue as a preliminary question, the Court said, it was certainly required to deal with the objection once it had been raised and noted.The Court further found that the impugned decision was a non-speaking order, as it did not disclose any reasons for directing the committee to proceed. “There is no discussion, no analysis, and no indication of the reasons which weighed with the Board in proceeding further despite the objection. The decision proceeds as if the objection had no bearing on the matter. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Court, is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the settled requirement that a quasi-judicial authority must deal with the submissions advanced before it,” the Court said.Reliance was placed on The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India & Anr. (1976) where the Supreme Court held that where an authority exercises quasi-judicial functions, it is imperative that it accords a proper hearing and gives clear and explicit reasons in support of its conclusions.Thus holding that the decision-making process was vitiated, the Court quashed the impugned decision.The matter has been remanded to the Board for fresh consideration.Appearance: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajanog, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Amol Sharma, Mr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Jagruti Ahuja, Mr. Sanjay Gupta & Mr. Ankita Singh, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, Adv. Mr. Zain Haider, Adv. Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Sahra, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur & Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advs. for RespondentsCase title: Standard Chartered Bank v. UoICase no.: W.P.(C) 615/2017 Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Quashes Contract Labour Board's Action On Standard Chartered Bank, Cites Failure To Decide Jurisdictional Objection

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags