The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of employment of contract laborers and the determination of employer-employee relationship should be based on evidence and adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the following reference made by the Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour / 1strespondent to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad / 2ndrespondent 1) Whether the demand of the K.G. Project, O.N.G.C. Ltd. Security Guards Workers Union, Narsapur for regularization of services of their 188 member workmen (as per list) and also for reinstatement and regularization of their 163 workmen (as per list) who were terminated arbitrarily by the management of ONGC K.G. Basin, Rajahmundry is legal and / or justified? If so to what relief the concerned Union is entitled?

2) Whether the demand of the K.G. Project, O.N.G.C. Ltd. Security Guards Workers Union, Narsapur for introducing 'Direct Payment System' by the management of O.N.G.C. Ltd. K.G.Basin, Rajahmundry to their member workmen who are deployed through various contractors is legal and / or justified? IF not, to what relief the concenred Union is entitled?

2. PETIIONER'S CASE

(a) The petitioner is the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), Rajahmundry. It is one of the 32 establishments of ONGC engaged in the activity of exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas. Having regard to nature of its activity, the work centres of the petitioner will not be confined or located permanently at any one particular place but keep on moving from place to place.

(b) The petitioner is having on its rolls sufficient number of regular employees to cater to its core activities. In order to perform certain incidental jobs to be handled on temporary basis, the petitioner entrusted to the contractors to get the temporary incidental jobs performed through the contract labourers. One of such job is security work and the contractors have been engaging their own guards mostly Ex-servicemen and some civilians and providing security to various work centres of the petitioner. Initially the said contract work was entrusted to the private contractors like Globe Detective Agency. However, in view of requests made by contract labour who formed the Co-operative Society, the petitioner awarded contracts to Labour Co-operative Societies like Godawari Industrial Workers Maintenance and Service Co-operative Society etc., instead of private contractors. Subsequently the Government of India, Ministry of Defense made a proposal to encourage the Societies formed by Ex-servicemen by awarding security jobs to such Societies which were sponsored by the Director General of Rehabilitation. Thus, since 1997 entire security work has been handled by the contractor i.e., M/s. Ex- servicemen Resettlement Coordinate Cooperative Society Limited, Rajahmundry which was sponsored by the Director General of Rehabilitation, Ministry of Defense, Government of India.

(c) After the expiry of the aforesaid contract work in August 2003, the petitioner called for tenders and finally awarded the security guard contract work to two contractors viz., (1) the Ex- servicemen Resettlement Coordinate Co-operative Society Limited, Rajahmundry and (2) M/s. Bombay Intelligence Security India Limited, Hyderabad w.e.f. 1/9/2003. On a humanitarian consideration, a clause was incorporated in the tender notice that as far as possible the incumbent contractors shall endeavour to employ the guards who were employed by the earlier contractors provided they were willing to join the service of the said contractors. Most of the workers of the ex-contractors joined the service of new contractors. However, some workers who were in the employment of earlier contractor and who did not join the service of new contractors formed themselves into a union as 3rd respondent. It is understood that some of the guards who joined the employment of two new contractors also became members of the 3rdrespondent union.

(d) While so, the 3rdrespondent issued an illegal notice dtd. 9/1/2004 to the petitioner and Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central, Visakhapatnam and others) purpor