The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for clear provisions in agreements to ensure the implementation of labour legislation and the statutory authorities' obligation to take prompt action on complaints in accordance with the law.

1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the very same Employees' Union. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.15079 of 2007), the petitioner Union sought for a direction to the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (IOC), being a Principal Employer to ensure and monitor that the delivery employees employed by the distributors, appointed by the respondent for supplying Indane LPG cylinders to the customers are complying with the statutory requirements of payment of minimum rate of wages, coverage under the Employees Provident fund scheme, coverage under Employees State Insurance

Scheme and other social welfare laws.

2. In the second writ petition (W.P.No.15080 of 2007), the same Trade Union representing the LPG Delivery Employees sought for a direction to the respondents to take appropriate and necessary action against the Indane Distributors in the State of Tamil Nadu for implementing the Minimum Wages Act, Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Employees State Insurance Scheme respectively within a time frame.

3. In the second writ petition, initially, the Government of India, Commissioner of Labour, Regional Provident Commissioner and the Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation were made as parties. Both the writ petitions were admitted and directed to be posted immediately after service.

4. Subsequently, M/s.Indane Distributors Association (TN and Pondy) filed M.P.No.2 of 2008, seeking for impleadment in the second writ petition to represent the interest of Indane Distributors and that Association was impleaded as 5th respondent by an order of this Court dated 27.04.2009. The petitioner Union has also filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking to implead the IOC represented by its General Manager, Chennai as party respondent and accordingly, they were impleaded as 6th respondent by an order dated 01.07.2011.

5. In the first writ petition, the sole respondent IOC had filed a counter affidavit dated 24.12.2007. In the second writ petition, respondents 3,4 and 5 have filed separate counter affidavits dated 27.06.2011, 27.06.2011 and 21.06.2011 respectively.

6. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.M.Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the IOC had employed Distributors for supplying Indane LPG Cylinders to the customers. The respondent IOC is a Public Sector undertaking owned by the Government of India and it is engaged in the distribution of petroleum products including LPG Gas Cylinders. In so far as LPG Indane Cylinders are concerned, IOC is having direct customers which are consumers of LPG. The respondent instead of supplying the LPG Cylinders directly to its customers, it had appointed Distributors. Those Distributors take delivery of LPG cylinders from the IOC and supply it to the customers. The delivery employees engaged by those Distributors, who in turn supply the LPG Cylinders door to door at the place of the customers. Those Distributors are protected with customers and are getting commission. It was stated that they are paid a commission of Rs.19.05 for each 14 Kg. Cylinder and Rs.50/- for each non-domestic cylinder of 19 kg. The Distributors are assured of around 8000 refills per month in rural areas and a minimum of 15,000 refills in metro cities. Apart from this, IOC was also offering a rebate of Rs.40/- to Rs.80/- on each of the non-domestic 19 Kgs Cylinder and the same was reimbursed by the IOC. It further offers a subsidy to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to furnish office accommodation of the Distributors. The respondent is also supplying at its cost, uniforms and shoes to the delivery employees employed by the Distributors. Therefore, the relationship between Indian LPG Distributors and the IOC is one of 'Contractor' and 'Principal Employer' within the meaning of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

7. It was further stated that the Distributors are appointed on the basis of public notification. Though the Indane Distributors are getting substa