2015 Supreme(SC) 326

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
ONGC LTD. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
PETROLEUM COAL LABOUR UNION & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Decided On : 17-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate an industrial dispute and impose upon the employer new obligations to strike a balance and secure industrial peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and ultimately deliver social justice.
Were reemployed after notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act cannot be denied regularisation taking the plea that their initial appointment was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Workmen working for more than 240 days in a calendar year cannot be denied right under Certified standing Orders merely because they are daily wagers. It amounts to unfair labour practice.
Standing Orders would prevail over the decision under ONGC Act.
Guidelines not framed in accordance with the relevant 'Business Transaction Rules' of the Central Government cannot be said to be policy decision.
When facts of the case clearly bring out commission of unfair labour practice, courts are empowered to adjudicate the same even in the absence of a plea.

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11 – Workmen daily wagers – Tribunal directing regularisation – Contention of lack of jurisdiction – Rejected – Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate an industrial dispute and impose upon the employer new obligations to strike a balance and secure industrial peace and harmony between the employer and workmen and ultimately deliver social justice. (Para 17)

       (2014) 7 SCC 190; AIR 1950 SC 188 – Relied upon

       (1997) 9 SCC 377; (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2001) 7 SCC 1; (2009) 8 SCC 556; (2007) 5 SCC 755 – Referred

       (b) Labour law – Regularisation – Workmen initially appointed as daily wagers – Were reemployed after notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act – Cannot be denied regularisation taking the plea that their initial appointment was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Issue not considered by Uma Devi – Uma Devi not applicable. (Para 28)

       2014(13) SCALE 636 – Relied upon

       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Referred

       (c) Labour law – Regularisation – Certified Standing orders requiring regularisation of workmen putting in 240 days work in one calendar year – Being daily wagers would not disentitle them of their rights under Certified standing Orders. (Para 29, 30)

       (d) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B(2) r/w clause 2(ii), Certified Standing Orders – Workmen putting-in more than 240 days of work in a calendar year – Entitled to be regularized. (Para 30)

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Policy decision taken under section 30A of ONGC Act and Standing Orders framed under section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Act 1946 being special Act, Standing Orders would prevail over the decision under ONGC Act. (Para 33)

       (1978) 4 SCC 16; (1984) 3 SCC 369 – Relied upon

       (f) Labour law – Corporation refusing regularisation of workmen contrary to settlement and Standing Orders on ground of alleged Central Government policy decision to depute CISF personnel for security tasks – Corporation ought to have amended clause 2(ii) of Standing orders in accordance with 1946 Act – Further, Central Government issuing guidelines – Cannot be said to be policy decision having not been framed in accordance with the relevant 'Business Transaction Rules' of the Central Government. (Para 36, 37)

       (g) Labour law – Regularisation – Workmen having required qualifications for appointment in the appellant Corporation appointed on monthly salaries – Corporation making Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation not applicable to them – Arbitrary and not tenable in view of the Corporation being a State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution – Such denial amounting to unfair labour practice in terms of section 2(ra) r/w Sections 25T and 25U of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act. (Para 38, 39, 40)

       (1985)3 SCC 545 – Relied upon

       (h) Administration of Justice – Finding of fact – Absence of specific plea of unfair labour practice – High Court recording a finding of fact regarding unfair labour practice – When facts of the case clearly bring out commission of unfair labour practice, courts are empowered to adjudicate the same even in the absence of a plea. (Para 41)

       (2011) 9 SCC 775 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The Corporation (ONGC) regularly employs about 1500 employees in its project in the Cauveri Basin. For the purpose of the Corporation's security requirement for the project, it initially employed the concerned workmen some of whom are members of the respondent-Union, as security guards and security supervisors through contractors. However, on being notified under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, the concerned workmen were employed as per the settlement arrived at between the Trade Union and the Management of the Corporation, under which it was agreed to form a Co-operative Society in the name of 'Thai Security Service Priyadarshini Indira Cooperative Society' for the welfare of such erstwhile contract workmen. The services were utilised by the Corporation through the Co-operative Society to meet its requirements and for the time period for which required, thus dispensing with intermediary contractors.

       The decision of the Corporation to entrust security task to CISF was challenged by the Tamilnadu National Industrial and Commercial Employees Union and the Petroleum Industrial Casual Contract Labour Union by filing writ petitions on the ground of breach of settlement and prayed for a consequential direction to absorb the workmen as regular employees.

       The single Judge of the High Court upheld the policy decision of the Corporation and dismissed the writ petitions holding that the workers were not entitled for regularisation and rejected the contentions of the workmen in these writ petitions.

       On 8.9.1987, the Corporation sent a letter to the Co-operative Society to withdraw the services of the security personnel of the Co-operative Society w.e.f. 19.10.1987 after handing over charge of the Corporation Unit to CISF personnel.

       Thereafter the Corporation issued memorandum of appointment directly to each one of the concerned workmen appointing them in the posts of 'Watch and Ward Security' on term basis from 13.1.1988 to 29.2.1988 and also on the condition that the 'Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission' will not apply to them.

       After completion of the above mentioned term, the concerned workmen were continued by the Corporation in their respective posts as a stop gap measure without formal written orders. As a result of which, the concerned workmen who were engaged through contractors and those who were members of the Co-operative Society became employees of the Corporation on temporary basis.

       Thereafter, the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispute claiming regularisation of their services in the Corporation.

       The Tribunal passed an award directing the Corporation to regularise the services of the concerned workmen and further held that the concerned workmen were entitled for regularisation of their services since they had completed 480 days of work as required under Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.

       The writ petition filed by the Corporation was dismissed.

       The writ appeal of the Corporation was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       The impugned judgment does not require interference.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.