Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Indian Oil United Contract, Labour Union, The Union of India (UOI) and Polite Maintenance Services

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.9.2002.

We have heard Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.

S. Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. None has appeared for the fourth respondent

although the name of the counsel for the fourth respondent has been shown in the cause list.

The writ petitioner is a Trade Union and in the writ petition it prayed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Registration Order

dated 30.11.1992 and direct the third respondent Indian Oil Corporation to consider the claim of the workers of the petitioner Union for

absorption and regularisation according to law.

The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The learned single Judge in

paragraph 16 of his judgment has directed the respondent Indian Oil Corporation to continue to engage the 32 workers whose names are found in

the Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He has further directed that their engagement shall be uninterrupted till their

services are regularised or absorbed.

In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. As held by a Constitution Bench decision of the

Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., the contract

labourers are not entitled to get automatic absorption even if there is a notification u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970 and these employees have to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of their claim.

In Writ Appeal Nos. 1048 to 1052 and 1092 to 1094 of 1998 (The Airport Officer, Salem Airport, Salem and Anr. v. M. Kalaikovan and

Ors.) dated 14.3.2005, we have followed the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In view of the above, in our opinion, the judgment of the

learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The workers concerned should have raised an Industrial Dispute with regard to their claim for

regularisation instead of directly approaching this Court. As regards the cancellation of the Registration, there is a right of appeal u/s 15 of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Hence the workers had an alternative remedy. The writ petition should not have been

entertained at all. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.