The industrial tribunal is tasked with determining the nature of employment and adjudicating disputes despite any ambiguity in the reference, reinforcing labor rights and ensuring timely resolution.

JUDGMENT :

1. The WP No.26265 of 2012 is filed by the O.N.G.C., Krishna Godavari Contract Workers Union challenging the oral instructions of the 4th respondent therein directing the members of the 1st petitioner not to attend to their duties from 31.08.2012. A further direction is sought to continue the members of the 1st petitioner in their respective posts held by them pursuant to the service agreement with the 5th respondent therein.

The WP No.29675 of 2012 is filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation challenging the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the 1st respondent therein and the ID.No.26 of 2012, which was registered in pursuance of the reference.

2. As the dispute arose on account of the reference of the Ministry of Labour dated 24.04.2012, the above two writ petitions are filed. The writ petition challenging the impugned reference shall be decided as the main writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners in WP No.29675 of 2012 would be adequately covered the issue of both the writ petitions.

3. The 1st respondent in WP No.29675 of 2012 vide its order dated 24.04.2012 passed an order of reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Hyderabad. An industrial dispute which was existing between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C., was referred by the 1st respondent by passing the following order of reference "Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of service of 178 workmen (list enclosed) who are working on tenure based employment by the management of ONGC, Rajamundry is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has regular employees on rolls who are recruited after following the recruitment process in accordance with service rules for all its core activities. It is submitted that the non-core activity is outsourced by awarding contracts to the contractors. It is also submitted that for providing security services the petitioner has awarded a contract. The said contractor would be the principal employer for the workmen engaged by the said contractor.

5. It is further submitted that in the year 1988 the Central Government has deployed men from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for providing security for the Central Government establishments including the petitioner. It is also submitted that the ministry of defence vide OM No.4(20)US(RES)/93, dated 04.02.1994 directed all ministries to issue appropriate instructions to all the public sector undertakings to entrust their security jobs to ex-servicemen security agencies sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement, New Delhi. It was also made clear that engaging private security agencies on contract basis is to be avoided.

6. The petitioner followed the instructions and engaged an Ex-servicemen society sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement for providing security services. In the year 1998, the State Government deployed men from A.P. State Special Protection Force to some of the installations of the petitioner for providing security. In the year 2003 the contract with the Ex-servicemen society was terminated. In December, 2011 State Government allotted 122 Home Guards who replaced 128 security personnel deployed by the contractor M/s. Asian Security Force.

7. 54 members who were working under the contractor M/s. Gurubani Security Private Limited filed WP Nos.16515 of 2008 and 17403 of 2008 seeking a direction to notify vacancies of security guards for recruitment. The wri