Shampa Sarkar, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short HPCL), a Government company challenging an award dated March 9, 2007 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata in Reference No.22 of 1998. By order No.L30012/67/97 - IR (Coal - I) dated June 30, 1998 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) referred the following dispute to the learned Tribunal for adjudication: Whether the action of the management of M/s. H.P.C.L., Paharpur for regularizing the services of canteen employees at Budge Budge and not regularizing the services of the workmen working in the canteen under M/s. Ten Friends Caterers at Paharpur LPG is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?
(2.) The reference was at the instance of the Bengal Petrol & Oil Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union), that is, the respondent No.3. The case of the respondent No.3 in their written statement was that, HPCL was running a plant at Paharpur LPG and had employed different categories of workmen/employees. A canteen was also run in the Paharpur plant allegedly by a fake contractor and nine (9) persons who were actually employees of HPCL, were shown to be partners of a fictitious contractor known by the name of M/s. Ten Friends Caterers. A list of the concerned workmen was annexed to the written statement. Their names are as follows:- 1. Sri Ashis Ganguly 2. Prafulla Misra 3. Sri Prabhakar Hazra 4. Sri Panchu Mondal 5. Sri Biswanath Maity 6. Sri Rajen Bera 7. Sri Dipak Khara 8. Sri Bablu Bag 9. Sri Subhas Maity
(3.) It was the contention of the respondent No.3 that the canteen was situated within the premises of the Paharpur LPG plant. The utensils, fuel, water, furniture, electricity connection, cutlery, crockeries required for the purpose of preparation and service of food to the workmen/employees as also the management staffs were provided by the HPCL. It was further contended that the management of the HPCL supervised and controlled the work of those nine (9) persons. HPCL also regularly deposited provident fund and ESI contribution on their behalf. HPCL, by not recognising those nine (9) as its workmen/employees had adopted unfair labour practice and further that HPCL by not absorbing them as regular employees unlike the employees in the HPCL canteen at Budge Budge, had practised discrimination and the same was violative of Articles 14, 16 and 38 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Union had raised a dispute with the management. The conciliation proceedings failed and the competent authority of the Government of India., Ministry of Labour referred the above dispute.;