Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
R. Kantha Rao, J.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Rajahmundry Asset - Petitioner
Versus
The Govt. of India, Rep. by its Secretary & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24817 of 2012
Decided On : 11-03-2016
For the Petitioner: E. Manohar, Kakara Venkata Rao
For the Respondents: B. Narayan Reddy, V. Hari Haran
Headnote:
Labour Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section 2-A – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Section 10(2) – Amendment Act of 2003 – Employment and Service mater – Notification – According to petitioner-Corporation, in respect of Security Guards of ONGC installations at Rajahmundry, Kakinada etc., there are 3 rings of deployment of security 1st ring of security is manned by CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) 2nd ring of security is manned by Andhra Pradesh Special Force (A.P. Police) 3rd ring of security, which is of casual nature, it is being discharged by contract workers engaged through a contractor – Respondent No.4 and 53 others have been raising their grievances for regularisation of their services in the establishment of ONGC at Rajahmundry – There were conciliation proceedings before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and said authority submitted a failure report to Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India – Later Ministry of Labour and Employment by O.M., addressed to Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi informing that it was proposed to refer dispute to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication – Whether demand of the workers of the Union for regularisation on tenure based employment by the ONGC, Rajahmundry Asset is justified, If so, what relief these workers are entitled to – Held, In respect of the Security Guards of ONGC installations at Rajahmundry, Kakinada, etc., there are 3 rings of deployment of security – The 1st ring of security is manned by the CISF (Central Industrial Security Force), the 2nd ring of security is manned by A.P. Special Force (A.P. Police) and the 3rd ring of security, which is of casual nature as and when required, the workers are being deployed and they are engaged through a contractor. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the work performed by the Security Guards in the 3rd ring of security is purely on ad hoc basis and the Security Guards or Security Supervisors are engaged through the contractors – Therefore impugned order abolishing the contract labour system in the 3rd ring of security is unsustainable as it does not relate to the core activity of the Corporation – Notification Spublished in the Gazette of India, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, therefore, is contrary to the A.P. Amendment Act of 2003 and the same is liable to be set aside in the present writ petition. This, however, does not mean that the issue of regularisation has been negatived in the present writ petition – Issue of regularisation is altogether a different issue and the same can be pursued by the contract workers in the appropriate forum in a separate proceeding – This writ petition only decides the issue as to whether the notification in S.O. published in the Official Gazette of India, dated 22-6-2012, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, is valid or liable to be aside – Impugned notification Sissued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 1st respondent is set aside – Writ petition is allowed. (Paras 18 and 19)
1. This writ petition is filed by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Rajahmundry Asset (the Corporation, for short) through its Executive Director/Asset Manager seeking a Writ of mandamus declaring the Notification S.O. 1418(E), dated 22-6-2012, published in the Gazette of India dated 22-6-2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, the 1st respondent herein, as illegal and void, and to set aside the same. The 4th respondent is the General Secretary of the ONGC Krishna Godavari Contract Workers’ Union.
2. One G. Rama Swamy, the 4th respondent herein and 53 others are said to be working as Security Guards on contract basis in the petitioner-Corporation. They have been consistently demanding for abolition of the contract labour system in the petitioner-Corporation. There have been several deliberations before the respondents 1 to 3 in that regard by the contract workers and the officials of the petitioner-Corporation. According to the petitioner-Corporation, in respect of the Security Guards of ONGC installations at Rajahmundry, Kakinada etc., there are 3 rings of deployment of security. The 1st ring of security is manned by the CISF (Central Industrial Security Force). The 2nd ring of security is manned by the Andhra Pradesh Special Force (A.P. Police). The 3rd ring of security, which is of casual nature, it is being discharged by the contract workers engaged through a contractor. R. Rama Swamy (respondent No.4) and 53 others have been raising their grievances for regularisation of their services in the establishment of ONGC at Rajahmundry. There were conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and the said authority submitted a failure report dated 22-9-2011 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. Later, the Ministry of Labour and Employment by O.M., dated 16-12-2011 addressed to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi informing that it was proposed to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the following issue – whether the demand of the workers of the Union for regularisation on tenure based employment by the ONGC, Rajahmundry Asset is justified? If so, what relief these workers are entitled to?
3. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi has forwarded the same to the ONGC and the ONGC objected to the same vide letter dated 14-02-2012. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India vide Order No.L 30011/44/2011-IR(M), dated 24-4-2012 instead of dropping the proceedings referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I.D. Act, for short).
4. Ultimately, the matter came to be heard by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB) before which R. Rama Swamy and 53 others demanded for abolition of contract labour system in the establishment of ONGC, East Godavari district for which the petitioner-Corporation submitted a written representation dated 29-9-2010 opposing the request for abolition. It was submitted by the workers before the Board that they have been engaged as Security Guards and Security Supervisors through contractors for the last 20 years, that there are around 186 contract workers, that they have been performing 8 hours duty daily and that the work of security is necessary and incidental to the work of ONGC.
5. Thereupon the Board considering the number of workers, period of employment on contract basis, the necessity and perennial nature of the job and the wages difference of contract employees took the view that the case fulfills the conditions laid down under Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Thus, the Board recommended the abolition of contract labour system in the sa
