REPORTABLE

Judgment reserved on: 15.07.2025 Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.1323 of 2013

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

--Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of

India/respondent no.1.

Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 5, 8 &

9.

Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, learned counsel holding brief of

Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition,

petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari

quashing the effect and operation of the impugned notification dated 08.09.1994 annexure-1 to the writ

petition during the pendency of the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the notification dated 08.09.1994

(annexure no.1 to the writ petition).”

2. The facts in brief are that the impugned notification dated 08.09.1994 was passed by Central Government prohibiting engagement of contractual workers in ONGC. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) lodged a complaint with CJM, Dehradun alleging therein that in spite of the said notification, certain contractual labours are employed with ONGC.

The case was numbered as Criminal Case No.1800 of 2012. The petitioner as a result of this case challenged the impugned notification alleging therein that the said notification can only be passed after following the mandate of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short “the Act, 1970”) and the bare perusal of the aforesaid section show that the mandate of Section 10 has not been complied with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a careful perusal of Section 10 of the Act, 1970 makes it evident that sub-section 1 of Section 10 commences with a non obstante clause and overrides the other provisions of the Act empowering the appropriate government to prohibit employment of contract labour by notification in official gazette after consulting with the Central/State Advisory Board. But, in the present case, the fact remains that there has been no discussion or consultation with the Central Board as it was only the sub-committee report which has been considered. Therefore, the mandate of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970 has not been complied with and there is no document on record to suggest that whether the sub-committee report was even considered by the Central Advisory Board or not. He further submitted that although, the sub-committee consisted of two employee’s representative, two employer’s representative and member convener but the final report was only signed by three of the members and the sub-committee which was constituted only visited four out of total thirty four establishments of ONGC and even in such visits, all the members never visited and there was always some deficit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the report of the sub-committee was never approved by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, therefore, the Government of India failed to follow the mandatory requirement under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970 and passed the impugned notification without application of mind and without considering the relevant factors and went on to prohibit contract laboures in total 13 works in the establishment of ONGC. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

(i) Steel Authority of India & others vs. National Unit Water front Workers & others; (2001) 7 SCC 1.

(ii) L & T MCNEIL Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2001) 3 S