Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel representing the ONGC and their Executive Director. The Union of India is represented by Mr. J. Deka, learned Central Govt. counsel.

2. The petitioners challenge the award dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure-G) in the Reference Case No.3(C)/1996, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati held that the 11 workmen are not entitled to regularization/equal wages, at par with the permanent security guards under the ONGC, but they are entitled to continue as contract labourer under the labour contractors engaged by the Management. This 2nd award was given on remand of the matter by this Court, through its judgment dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure-D) in the WP(C) No.8368/2001, wherein the High Court held that there is inadequate evidence on record for the Industrial Tribunal to answer the reference on demand for regularization/equal pay, claimed by 11 workmen. In the 1st round, through the award dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure-C) the Industrial Tribunal declared that the works of security guards of ONGC is perennial in nature and consequently the Management was directed to regularize the services of the workmen and to pay equal remuneration at par with regular employees of their status, till they are regularized in service.

3. Before the Tribunal the following issue was referred for adjudication:

“Whether the demand for regularization by management of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Nazira and equal wages at per with their direct counterparts by Shri Jatin Kr. Nath, Md. Safiratdin Ahmed, Deba Kanta Das, S.K. Nurmahammad Ali, Sri Sreeprasad Das, Md. Basiratdin Ahmed, Anil Ch. Das, Dijen Kakaty, Pranab Borah, Parag Phukan, Prafulla Das, Bhadra Kanta Das, Rupam Kr. Das, Bipul Borah, Sunil Dey, Atul Ch. Das, Md. Rafiqul Hussain and Bijit Nath is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are those workmen entitled?”

4. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both parties, where the workmen pleaded that their family lands was acquired by the ONGC for oil exploration in the year 1986 and there was an assurance that one member of each affected family will be provided employment by the ONGC. Consequent to discussions between the Management, the affected families and the District Authorities, the concerned workmen were engaged in 1986-87 as temporary security guards but when the Management failed to regularize their temporary services, a demand was raised by the workmen and eventually the said demand after failure of conciliation, was referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972.

5. On the other hand, the Management claimed that the workmen were employees of the contractors engaged by the ONGC to guard their equipment/drill sites and that there is no employer-employee relationship between the temporary security guards and the ONGC. The Management also pleaded that prohibitory notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “Abolition Act”) was not issued against the ONGC and therefore their engagement of security guards through contractors was contended to be legally permissible.

6. After consideration of the rival plea and also the evidence on record, the learned Industrial Tribunal found inherent contradiction in the ONGC’s case in as much as on one hand the Management claimed that the workmen concerned were of the contractors whereas on the other hand, the case projected was that the concerned workmen were the contract employees. But since the ONGC had neither examined any contractors to prove the engagement of the workmen concerned and nor the Management had exhibited any licence for the contractors to employ contract labourers, it was concluded that the concerned workmen were direct employees of the ONGC and therefore they are entitled to regularization of service/equal pay, with permanent employe