2026:BHC-AS:1492-DB LAXMI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SUBHASH SONTAKKE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LAXMI SUBHASH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2011 SONTAKKE Date: 2026.01.14

17:05:21 +0530 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2011 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant/Org.Petitioner Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh & Anr. ...Respondents _______

Mr. K. P. Anil Kumar a/w Jayashree Kumar a/w Priyanka Kumar for Appellant/

Org. Petitioner.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 9^th JANUARY 2026 P.C.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 2^nd December 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2011 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant thereby upholding the interim order dated 16^th March 2011 passed by the learned presiding officer, CGIT-II in reference No. CGIT-II/61/2009. The aforesaid reference has been made by the Government for deciding as to whether Respondent No.1-Union’s Members/workers are employees of the Appellant and not the employees of Respondent No.2 or any other contractor engaged by the Appellant.

2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-

(i) The Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Public Sector Undertaking owned by the Government of India under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Respondent No.1 is a Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and Respondent No.2 is a Contractor engaged in the business of taking contract for running the cafeteria at the Western Region Office of the Petitioner. The Appellant has branches all over India and cafeteria facility is provided in the marking Division of the Western Region Office of the Petitioner. This cafeteria facility is provided purely for the benefit and convenience of the employees.

(ii) The cafeteria facilities provided for the staff is through a contractor appointed by the Appellant and the said contract is a valid, legal and subsisting contract. The concerned contractor engages his own staff for the purpose of running the cafeteria and there is no Employer-Employee relationship between the canteen contract labourers and the Appellant. The day to day supervision and control of the canteen operations is carried out by the concerned contractor and it is the contractor who pays the wages and maintains the muster roll and wage register. It is the contractor who complies with all the Labour Laws and statutory obligations in respect of all his cafeteria staff.

(iii) The Appellant is registered as a Principal Employer under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and in the Western Region office of the Marketing Division, a canteen is operated by the Respondent No.2. under the contract of the Appellant.

(iv) The present Appeal concerns with 17 canteen contract labourers employed by the various contractors in the canteen of the Appellant. As stated aforesaid, the said contract labourers have been employed by the various contractors and they are under the supervision and control of the relevant contractors.

(v) Respondent No.1 Union had filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 1267 of 1999 seeking direction to the Government to abolish contract system. The said Petition was disposed off without any orders/relief. Therefore another Writ Petition (L) No. 853 of 2004 was filed and in the said Petition, the Respondent Union claimed that they had filed a Charter of Demand for regularization of the contract labourers and it was prayed that the Government may be directed to refer the said demand to the appropriate court/Tribunal to decide as to whether the Petitioner was in direct employment of the Appellant/Petitioner or was in the employment of the contractor. In the said Petition, a consent order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 22^nd April 2004 and the relevant minutes of the order in the aforesaid Petition have been reproduced in th