Inspite of limited scope of review writ court can interfere.

The Chief Justice

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2002 passed in W.P.No.21407 of 2000.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

3. The writ petitioner (1st respondent in this Writ Appeal) had filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the order of the first respondent therein (Union of India) dated 17.11.1999, and the corrigendum dated 13.10.2000. By the order dated 17.11.99 the following reference had been made by the Central Government under Sections 10(1) and 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai referring the following matter to the Tribunal.

“Whether the demand of ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union for regularization of 42 contract labourers listed in Annexure ‘A’ is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

4. The subsequent corrigendum dated 13.10.2000 states:-

“In this Ministry’s order of even number dated 17.11.1999, in the schedule thereof, the number of contract workman appearing in second sentence may be read as 54.”

5. The writ petitioner (1st respondent in this writ appeal) is a public sector corporation. In the course of its business it made an attempt to discover oil and natural gas in the sea near Chennai. By January 1995 it was found that no oil or natural gas was available at Chennai, and hence the exploration activities were wound up. During the exploration activities the petitioner had to transport material and other supplies from on-shore to off-shore. For this purpose a contract for stevedoring, shipping services, loading and unloading of materials and transport of materials, etc., was entered into between the petitioner and the 5th respondent in the writ petition, M/s.Pandian Transports, and for executing this contract M/s.Pandian Transports had engaged dock workers who are covered by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. This contract between the writ petitioner and M/s.Pandian Transports was for a period of one year commencing from 18.09.1994. The contract was terminated w.e.f.04.01.1995.

6. The 4th respondent in the writ petition namely., the Transport and Dock Workers Union raised demands in respect of wages payable to them. It may be mentioned that M/s.Pandian Transport had entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29.08.1994 with the aforesaid 4th respondent-Union. On the termination of the contract between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the said Union made a demand on the 5th respondent for payment of earned wager for the month of December, 1994 and 3 days in January, 1995 i.e., upto 3.1.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner received a copy of the communication dated 29.05.1995 by the 4th respondent addressed to the 5th respondent stating that the 5th respondent had paid all the dues to the workers including the earned wages for the period from 10.09.1994 to 03.01.1995, but the PF amount for the period 01.12.1994 to 03.01.1995 remained unpaid. This was however settled by the 5th respondent on 24.05.1996. Thus, it is alleged that all the claims of the personnel had been fully settled by 1996.

7. The 4th respondent-Union sought to raise an industrial dispute with respect to revision of wages of the workmen of the 5th respondent, and the petitioner-Corporation was also impleaded as a party in the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner-Corporation took the stand in conciliation proceedings that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner-Corporation and the members of the 4th respondent – Union, and the members of the 4th respondent were employees of the contractor (the 5th respondent) and not of the petitioner. According to the petitioner-Corporation, it had no control over the said contract labour (the members of the 4th respondent), and the consideration for the said contract was on the basis of the tonnage of the material lifted and not on the ba