L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) COMMON JUDGMENT :in this batch of writ petitions filed by Oil and natural Gas Corporation Limited, Krishna godavari Project, writs of prohibition are sought against the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court from proceeding with the adjudication of the cases filed by the respective contract labour arrayed as respondent No. 1 in each of the writ petitions.

( 2 ) SINCE the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of through this common judgment.

( 3 ) IT is averred in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the petitioner is a Central Government Company engaged in the activities of exploration and exploitation of Oil and Natural Gas and that it has its offices and establishment in the krishna Godavari Basin, with headquarters at Rajahmundry.

( 4 ) IT is their contention that the work involved in the project is not confined to any particular place and that it keeps on changing depending on the availability of hydro Carbons at various places. The work at a particular place is of relatively shorter duration. While its main activity is carried out through highly qualified technical personnel, the intermittent works like providing security arrangement for field staff etc. , are performed through contracts. One such contract was awarded to godavari Industrial Workers Maintenance and Supervise Co-operative Society, rajahmundry/the 2nd respondent.

( 5 ) THE Government of India, Ministry of Defence has issued directions, through the Ministry of Industries and other associated ministries to the effect that the security work being given on contract by the Public sector Undertakings should be entrusted only to the societies or agencies established by ex-Servicemen, recognised and sponsored by the Director General of resettlement of ex-Servicemen. Further, there were also allegations against the 2nd respondentsociety to the effect that it was indulging in large scale exploitation of workers and misappropriation of provident fund contributions by resorting to forgeries etc. It was on account of these two reasons that the labour contract with the 2nd respondent was not renewed after 30. 6. 1997.

( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent filed W. P. No. 12190/1997 in this Court seeking a declaration that the workers engaged by it for performing the work with the petitioner should be treated as regular employees of the petitioner and that the services of such employees cannot be terminated unilaterally, and thereby deprive them of their livelihood. The writ petition was dismissed through order dated 22. 6. 2000 holding that once the labour contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had expired on 30. 6. 1997, the 2nd respondent was under obligation to withdraw the labour deployed by it under that contract. It was also held that there was no termination disengagement of the contract labour on account of notification issued under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Randa) act (for short "clra Act" ). However, it was left open to the concerned contract labour to work out the remedies.

( 7 ) THE respective workers have filed cases under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short the "i. D. Act") before the Industrial Tribunal, the 4th respondent, against the writ petitioner and respondent No. 2, the Society which engaged them and the 3rd respondent, Ex-Service and Resettlement Co-operative Society seeking a direction to the petitioner to reinstate them with full back wages from the date of termination i. e. 1. 7. 1997. It was the contention of the contract labour that they were engaged as the contract labour as security Guards/supervisors from 1. 3. 1989 and that they were disengaged with effect from 1. 7. 1997. They further contended that the engagement of contract labour as watchmen was prohibited by the Central government by issuing a notification dated 9. 12. 1976 in exercise of powers under section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act and as such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document