Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1816 OF 2014 Special Leave Petition (C) NO.23272 OF 2012
Decided On : 4-02-2014
(1997) 9 SCC 377; (2001) 7 SCC 1 – Referred
(b) Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt for willful disobedience of Court’s order – Issues for consideration – Contempt Court cannot go beyond the writ order – Only the explicit directions in a judgment or order plainly self evident ought to be taken into account – Decided issues cannot be reopened – Plea of equities can also not be considered. (Para 15)
(2002) 5 SCC 352; (2004) 13 SCC 610; (2008) 5 SCC 339; (2006) 1 SCC 613 – Relied upon
(c) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – High Court directing respondents to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator – Not permissible. (Para 16)
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Writ Court directing regularization and parity of pay – Contempt Court ordering creation of supernumerary posts – Beyond jurisdiction. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as Radio Operators on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. By a notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment of contract labour in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio Operators, was prohibited. After a round of litigation, the respondents were absorbed as “Junior Helpers” and their pay was fixed at the bottom of the basic pay of Class IV employees of the Corporation.
Thereafter a Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas which recommended that the Corporation is bound to absorb all the contract Radio Operators who had the requisite qualification in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the pay scale applicable to the said post.
This recommendation was not given effect to and it led to another round of litigation.
The High Court directed the respondents to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. In absence of sufficient posts in the cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, the Court directed the respondents to accommodate all the petitioners by giving “pay protection” and sanctioning them the scale of pay as applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators. This order was affirmed even by the Supreme Court.
When the order was not complied with, contempt petition was filed before the High Court wherein the impugned direction for creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator was made.
This order is impugned in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Contempt Court overstepped its jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary posts, this appeal has been filed by the respondents in the contempt proceeding.
3. Shorn off unnecessary details the core facts that would need a recital are enumerated hereinbelow.
The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as Radio Operators on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), a Public Sector Undertaking, inter alia, engaged in on-shore and off-shore oil and natural gas exploration. By a notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment of contract labour in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio Operators, was prohibited. A Writ Petition bearing No. 15211 of 1991 seeking a direction to the Corporation to treat the contract Radio Operators at par with the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators was pending before the High Court at that point of time. Subsequently, the union representing 56 number of contract employees engaged as Radio Operators instituted another Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 1178 of 1996 seeking the same relief.
4. In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour Union and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 377 this Court took the view that upon abolition of contract labour the persons engaged on contract basis became the employees of the principal employer and hence entitled to regularization under the principal employer. The said view has been subsequently dissented from, though prospectively, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1. Following the decision of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Others (supra) the writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by Order dated 29.01.1997. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Corporation against the said order was dismissed. The matter was carried to this Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.20951 of 1997 which was disposed on 12.1.1998 with the following operative direction.
“Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that those of the 56 workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations, as in force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377. In view of this statement the SLP does not survive and is disposed of.”
5. Following the aforesaid order of this Court in the special leave petition the respondents herein were absorbed as “Junior Helpers” with effect from 29.1.1997 by an order dated 2.4.1998. Their pay was fixed at the bottom of the basic pay of Class IV employees of the Corporation. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the respondents being employees of the Southern Region of the Corporation were posted at Karaikal and Rajamundry stations.
6. It appears that thereafter a Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas which recommended that the Corporation is bound to absorb all the contract Radio Operators who had the requisite qualification in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994 and in the pay scale applicable to the said post as on 8.9.1994.
7. As the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee was not being given effect to, the present respondents instituted another proceeding before the High Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000 seeking a direction for their absorption as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994.
Specifically, it must be taken note of that in the aforesaid writ proceeding the Corporation had, inter alia, contended that there was no requirement of Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the Southern Region Business Centre (SRB
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
