OIL INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been initiated by the Oil India Limited for issue of a writ quashing the impugned notification dated January 25, 2000 published in the Gazette of India Extra-Ordinary dated January 25,2000 (Annexure D). The impugned notification reads as follows:

(2.) The effect of the aforesaid notification is the abolition of the intermediary between the contract labourers and the principal employer i.e. the Oil India Limited( Pipe Line Division) in the instant case. Oil India Limited have challenged the notification on various grounds to be addressed later on. Before that I would like to clear the facts for better appreciation of the controversy at hand.

(3.) In 1991, the contract labourers engaged by the Contractors raised a dispute through their Union for regularisation of the services and for similar service benefits. After discussion and investigation, 313 labourers were given the similar pay and wages as per conciliatory agreement signed on December 23, 1992 by the Management and the Union. The Union again filed Civil Rule No. 4320/1996 before this Court praying for regularisation of the services of the said 313 contract labourers and also for similar benefits to another set of 101 labourers. The said civil rule was disposed of with the observation that the Workers' Union may approach the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour. Thereafter, the Workers' Union filed a representation before the Government of India which was discussed at Hyderabad in the month of August, 1996. The designated Principal employer of the Pipe Line Division attended meeting on behalf of Oil India Limited and placed all materials before the Board. The Board, after consideration of the materials placed decided to constitute a Committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour in the establishment of Oil India Limited (Pipe Line Division). Thereafter, a Committee was constituted by Notification dated November 17, 1998 with Shri Shankar Saha, Secretary, U.T.U.C., Shri C. H. Khistry (Pers), Central Coal India Limited and the Respondent No.2, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati to go into the question. The Management of Oil India Limited submitted all details to the respondent No. 2 and in the meeting of the Committee held on January 11, 1999, it was decided to visit Sonapur Pump Station, West Bengal on February 2, 1999 for investigation. The proposed visit to Sonapur was not materialized and the Respondent No. 2 by letter dated February 15, 1999 (Annexure-B) informed the Management that the Members of the Committee will visit the Pipe Line Headquarter on February 17, 1999 for a discussion with the workers and the Union representative. On that day the Management of the Oil India Limited was informed over phone that instead of visiting the work site, the members will hold meeting at the LGNB International Airport at Guwahati. Accordingly a meeting was held at LGNB International Airport at Guwahati for about half an hour only. On July 7, 1999 the Central Advisory Board met at New Delhi to consider the matter. In that meeting the prayer of the Management for adjournment was turned down. However, the representative of the Management came to know that the Committee made two sets of recommendations. One favouring abolition and the other either abolition or payment of similar pay benefits. The impugned notification (Annexure-D) issued by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Board ex-facie suggest non-application of mind to the factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The contract labourers represented by the Union are mainly engaged in the residential colonies and a local inspection by the Committee was necessary to determine whether the engagement is connected with any process or operation of the Pipe Line Division. According to the Petitioner, none of these jobs is perennial in nature. On this background, the notification has been assailed as violative of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1970.