Moot Problem - 2

Enlightened by the latest medical bulletins about the hazards of using asbestos sheets, and frightened by the plight of deformed workers in the asbestos industry an NGO named Public Causes having its Head Quarters at Noida filed a Public Interest Litigation against functioning of an asbestos Industry situated in U.P. Duly concerned with the plight of the workers in that industry and also after understanding the ill effects endured by the Consumers and users of asbestos sheets, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement on 09-12-2011, having the following ingredients:

a) The judgment will impose obligations to all the asbestos industries functioning within the territory of India.

b) Every asbestos Industry must have a health clinic wherein the workers must be screened.

c) The industrial undertaking must bear all the medical expenses of both working and retired employees.

d) Before marketing the Abestos Sheet, the manufacturer should obtain health clean certificate from the accredited agency.

e) Labour Inspectors of the area where the industrial unit functions shall be responsible for the implementation of the above said regulations and the District Collector shall supervise the work of the Labour Inspectors.

Mamco Industries Ltd., are having a large asbestos Manufacturing Unit at Arakonam, Tamilnadu and their products cater to the needs of all the southern states of India. It is an accepted fact that Mamco asbestos Unit did not implement the regulations as stipulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court, nor the Labour Inspectors indicted Mamco for its failure to implement the regulations nor the Collector of District where the manufacturing Unit functions supervise or censure the Labour Inspectors. Public Causes filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India against the District Collector. Supreme Court, besides acting on the contempt, passed an order under Art.142 of the Indian Constitution suspending the District Collector for 6months. Both Mamco Industries Ltd., and District Collector filed Separate Writ Petitions under Art.226 of Constitution of India in High Court of Madras; challenging the legislative judgment of the Supreme Court of India, and the second one, challenging the order of the Supreme Court under Art.142 of the Constitution of India, as the Second limb of Art.142 was not complied with. Both Writ Petitions were clubbed by the High Court and posted for hearing.

The High Court framed the following Issues for hearing:

a) Whether a legislative judgment comes under Art.141 of the Constitution?

b) Whether a legislative judgment comes under the phrase ‘Law’ under Art.13 of the Constitution?

c) Whether the Supreme Court usurps the legislative power conferred on the Legislatures when enacting legislative judgments?

d) Whether the legislative judgment of the Supreme Court becomes a force of law without getting the assent of the President?

e) What is the legality of the order of the Supreme Court passed under Art.142 when both the Parliament and the President did not pass any subsequent legal actions?