$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :- 27.01.2026.

Date of Decision :- 27 .03.2026.

+ LPA 8/2021 PRATAP SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nitin Jain &

Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Advocates.

versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. V.N. Koura with Ms. Paramjeet Benipal, Advocates for Respondent No.1/IOCL.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Rebina Rai, Advs. CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. This intra-court appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 7645/2016 instituted by Indian Oil Corporation Limited – respondent no.1, herein challenging the order dated 10.05.2016 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referring the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) read with Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act), has been allowed and the said order dated

10.05.2016 has been quashed.

2. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of reference dated 10.05.2016 has observed in the impugned judgment and order that in view of the earlier award dated 15.09.1989 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CGIT) in respect of the contractual workers of Mathura Refinery, a Unit of respondent no.1, no industrial dispute existed and, therefore, the order dated 10.05.2016 of the Central Government making reference in relation to the industrial dispute was bad in law.

3. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has noted that in the earlier order dated 15.09.1989, the CGIT has held that there was no employee-employer relationship between the appellants and the respondent no.1 and that in law they were not the employees of the respondent no.1 hence the reference made by the Central Government dated

10.05.2016 could not be upheld.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that on issuance of a prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as CLRA Act) prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, an industrial dispute, if brought before the industrial adjudicator by any contract labour in regard to condition of service, will have to be considered and the adjudicator will be required to consider the question as to whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse and camouflage to evade compliances of various other beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of benefit thereunder.

5. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that on account of quashing of the referral order dated 10.05.2016 by the impugned judgment and order, the industrial adjudicator has been deprived of the opportunity to consider the said question, which he was under obligation to consider in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra). Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the appellants on D.P.Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors (1983) 4 SCC 293 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 233

6. On the aforesaid counts it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has completely erred in quashing the order of reference dated 10.05.2016, which has resulted in deprivation of right of the appellants of adjudication