Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 2125
High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
RAMESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
W. P. (C) 15636 Of 2006
Decided On : 11/18/2006
Preet Pal Singh, RAJIV BAHL, S.P.SRIVASTAVA, SANJEEV SACHDEVA
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate Government has the authority to refuse the reference of a wrong dispute, especially when the dispute sought would prevent the Tribunal from adjudicating the nature of employment.
Headnote:
Contract Labour - Dispute over regularization - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Sections 10, 12 - The court discussed the dispute over the regularization of contract labor engaged by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) through contractors. The court analyzed the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Supreme Court judgments on the issue of regularization of contract labor. The court found that the appropriate Government had the authority to refuse the reference of a wrong dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, contract labor engaged by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) through contractors, sought regularization of their services. They claimed to be employees of IOC and demanded regularization based on their continuous service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appropriate Government had the authority to refuse the reference of a wrong dispute. The petitioners sought a dispute to be referred in terms that would have prevented the Tribunal from adjudicating the nature of their employment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appropriate Government had the authority to refuse the reference of a dispute over the regularization of contract labor engaged by IOC through contractors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate Government had the authority to refuse the reference of a wrong dispute. The petitioners sought a dispute that would have prevented the Tribunal from adjudicating the nature of their employment.
Final Decision: The court found no merits in the writ petition and upheld the decision of the appropriate Government to refuse the reference of the dispute in the terms sought by the petitioners.
NO.-L-30012/16/2006- IR ( M)
Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/shram Mantralaya
New Delhi , Dated: 18/07/2006
To,
1]. The General Manager,
Marketing Division IOCL, northern Region
IOC Bhawan , 1. Community Centre Yusuf Sarai
New Delhi
2]. The General Manager
DSO World Trade Centre, Babur Road
New Delhi
3]. M/s Bharat Fabricators and Contractors,
Sh . Mange Ram Tomar , G-5/60, Sector 15,
Rohini , New Delhi-85
4]. M/s Kapoor and Co. ,
56/12, Ashok Nagar
New Delhi-18
5]. M/s S. K. Garden Traders,
Flat No. 59, Pocket-I, Sector 23 Dwarka
New Delhi-45
6]. M/s Joginder Engg. Works
House No. 192, Village and p. O. Jaffarpur Kalan
Najafgarh , New Delhi-73
7]. Shri Ramesh Kumar and Others
C/o Asha Jain mada , 320, New Lawyers' Chambers
Supreme Court Of India
New Delhi-110001
Subject: ID between the management of IOCL and M/s Bharat Fabricators and Contractors, proprietor Sh. Mange Ram Romar and Shri Ramesh Kumar and other 163 workmen over regularization in servce.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. ALC-
1/8 (50)/2005-LKS dated 12/04/2006 from the ALC (New Delhi) received in this Ministry on 12/04/2006 on the above mentioned subject and to say that prima facie, the Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:
"the workmen who raised the dispute did not produce any authentic documents to show that they were engaged by the management of IOC. The contractors who had engaged the workmen are holding license under the Contract Labour ( Randa ) Act and the principal employer (IOCL) is registered under the above said Act for engaging workmen on contract basis"
Yours faithfully,
(B. M. DAVID)
UNDER secretary
1. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi
3. Guard file
4. C. R . Section.
( 2 ) THE factual matrix in which the petitioner has sought a reference of dispute by the government is as under: the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) had engaged the services of the haulage contractors on the basis of a public tender. The haulage contract was awarded to M/s Bharat Fabricators at Madanpur Khaden Plant in order to handle the miscellaneous works at the plant. The petitioners were employed by the contractor to do the work under the contractor. They were issued entry passes by the respondent IOC for entering into the bottling plant at Madanpur Khaden plant as contract labour. The petitioners filed a statement of claim before the conciliation Officer alleging that the petitioners were engaged for the various jobs by the management of IOC through its different agencies and the petitioners have been working without any break for the last many years for IOC. There was a substantial number of workmen of the class of the petitioners. The job being performed by the petitioners was of a permanent and perennial in nature however, the respondent in order to deprive the petitioners of equal wages employed the petitioners ostensibly through different agents. The said agents were and had always been only the name-lenders with no control of any kind over the workers. The petitioners have been working under direct control and supervision of the management. They were in continuous service of IOC for various period as stated in annexure giving the names of the petitioners, nature of work and the period for which the petitioners had worked. They were in fact the workers of IOC only because as per knowledge of the petitioners neither the management i. e IOC was registered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act nor the contractors were having license under the Act. The petitioners were performing jobs in the LPG plant, depot and terminal of IOC established at Delhi. Vide a notif
