Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - (1.) This appeal after special leave arises out of the following facts :
(2.) The appellant, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter called the "ONGC") is engaged in the exploration for oil and natural gas. In 1997, the ONGC started its drilling operations in the district of Cachar and for that purpose engaged a large number of staff in various fields, initially through contractors. These em ployees later formed the ONGC Contractual Workers Union (hereinafter called the "Union") which is the contesting respondent in this matter. The Union raised a dis pute demanding the regularization of the services of its members. This demand was resisted by the ONGC and on the failure of conciliation proceedings, the State Gov ernment made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
(3.) The parties before the Industrial Tribunal filed their pleadings and also re corded their evidence. The Tribunal in its award dated 11th July 1994, held that the members of the Union were indeed the employees of the ONGC and a direction was accordingly issued that their services be regularized in a phased manner with pay and other allowances, as permissible to regular employees. This award was chal lenged by the ONGC in the High Court on the ground that the members of the Union were employees of the contractors and not of the ONGC and as such there was no obligation on the part of the ONGC to regularize their services. The learned Single Judge accepted this submission and further observing that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding beyond the reference, allowed the writ petition. A Writ appeal was thereafter taken by the Union before the Division Bench of the High Court which, vide the impugned judgment dated 24th December 1999, reversed the findings of the learned Single Judge observing that the powers of the High Court while examining an award of a subordinate tribunal were not as if it were a Court of Appeal and that the learned Single Judge appeared to have fallen into a cardinal error in differing with the conclusions on facts drawn by the Industrial Tribunal. The Division Bench then noted that no workman or contractor had been examined to show the existence of any contract labour and that no clarification having been sought by the ONGC under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act 1970, the very basis for the employment of contract labour did not exist. The Division Bench also observed that there was no ambiguity with regard to the issues raised in the reference made by the State Government as the parties were fully aware as to its meaning and import. The writ appeal was accordingly allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the award of the Industrial Tribunal re stored. The ONGC is before us in appeal.;