J U D G M E N T

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

W.P.(C) 426/1999, CM APPL. 3225/2000, CM APPL. 5764/2004, CM APPL. 1809/2012, CM APPL. 51973, CM APPL.42801/2022 & CM APPL.43224/2022

1. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the notification dated

09.11.1998, issued by the Union of India, under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting the employment of contract labour in various departments of Mathura Refinery and Marketing Division of the Petitioner at Mathura (“Impugned Notification”), on the ground, inter-alia, that it is based on irrelevant considerations and without taking into account relevant factors.

CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION

2. Mathura Refinery was commissioned in 1981-82 to meet the demand of petroleum products in north-western region of India and to provide employment and development in this “less developed” region. During the construction phase of the refinery, large number of workmen had been employed through various contractors, in various departments of refinery. In 1985, the petitioner retrenched 48 contract workers through their respective contractors. A union named „The Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh‟ was formed to represent these workmen. They challenged the said retrenchment in the Supreme Court of India by way of a writ petition1, seeking permanent absorption into the work force of the Mathura Refinery. On 16.01.1986, the Supreme Court held that the Central Government should refer the case to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the following issues:

1 W.P. No. 2867/1986

a) Whether the Petitioners and the 48 workmen whose services have been terminated are employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura?

b) Whether the termination of services of the 48 workmen was justified?

c) To what reliefs are the workmen entitled?

The Supreme Court inter-alia restrained the petitioner from retrenching the contract workers till the final disposal of the matter.

3. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 15.09.1989, held that that the contract labour employed at the Mathura refinery are, in law, not employees of the petitioner i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited but employees of the contractors. It also advised the petitioner to make a reference to the Central Advisory Board constituted under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter „the Contract Labour Act‟) to undertake a study apropos the desirability of continuance or otherwise, whether wholly or to a limited extent, of the contract labour system at the Mathura Refinery. It also held that till such time the Central Advisory Board makes its recommendations and action is taken, the management shall ensure that the contract labour be paid at least the minimum pay scale of its regular employees.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the Mazdoor Sangh filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the tribunal was upheld.

5. The Mazdoor Sangh approached the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB) and sought initiation of proceedings under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. By resolution No. U-23013(10)/90/LW, dated

30.05.1990, the CACLB constituted a Tripartite Committee to consider the issue of abolition of contract labour system in various departments of the Mathura Refinery and the Marketing division of petitioner.

6. In its Report submitted in June 1995, the Majority of the Tripartite Committee concluded that contract labour in certain department/jobs should be abolished. The petitioner filed its objections/comments to the said Report. After considering the Report of the Tripartite Committee and the objections raised by the petitioner, the CACLB appointed the Chief Labour Commissioner to re-examine the matter and submit his report.

7. The latter deputed the Joint Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to visit the Mathura Refinery to study the Co