AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—With the consent of the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing.
We have heard the arguments of Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s King and Partridge, appearing for the appellant
and Mr. J. Narayanamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / workmen and have perused the records.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 02.8.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 21518 of 2000 wherein and
by which the appellant Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited [for short, ''Corporation''] was directed to absorb the respondents as Marine
Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 08.9.1994 on account of abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated
04.6.1999 of the Ministry of Petroleum and. Natural Gas, Government of India together with all monetary benefits and all other attendant benefits.
If for some reason, there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or no sufficient posts available in the said cadre, a further direction was
given to the appellant Corporation to accommodate the respondents and to give any other post and also to give pay protection to them.
Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation submitted that the direction issued by the learned single
Judge, by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to absorb a set of workmen as workmen of the appellant Corporation
was contrary to law and opposed to the dicta of the Supreme Court vide its decision reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc.
Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., . Without prejudice to the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel also stated
that the respondents, through their Union, have raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and it was taken on file as I.D. No. 88 of 1997 and
since they have abandoned pursuing the dispute, the same was closed by the Tribunal by its Award dated 26.5.1999 and, therefore, it should
operate as an estoppel against any claim made by the respondents workmen. He also submitted that the various recommendations alleged to have
been made by the Officers of the appellant Corporation and the officials of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, are
only inter-party correspondences and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon them. An advice was tendered by the officials of the Ministry,
without regard to the facts of the case, when the claim of the respondents workmen was to absorb them in the post of Marine Assistant Radio
Operators, there is no such post available with reference to the area in which the respondents were working and, therefore, they cannot take
advantage of the order of the Government of India dated 08.9.1994 abolishing the contract labour. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the
notice of this Court the Notification in which the contract labour was abolished with reference to several employment in the appellant Corporation
and in the schedule appended to the Notification, Serial No. 12 refers to Radio Operators whereas the respondents are seeking for absorption as
Assistant Marine Radio Operators, which post does not exist. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondents do not possess the
necessary qualification and they are not eligible to be regularized as Marine Assistant Radio Operators as they were not doing the work of Marine
Assistant Radio Operators and there is no post of Radio Operators in ONGC (Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1980).
While some of the arguments were never addressed before the learned single Judge, the other argument is one of desperation as the records
clearly show that there is series of litigations between the appellant Corporation and the respondents/workmen and as early as February 1997, this
Court vide order dated 29.01.1997 in W.P. No. 15211 of 1991 directed the appellant Corporation to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners witty
reference to the actural persons employed and also to absorb them in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (9) SCALE 78
[Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. v. United Labour Union and Ors.]. There was a further order dated 29.01.1997 in W.P.No. 1178 of 1996
wherein similar order was passed. As against the said order, appeals were filed before this Court being W.A.Nos. 389 and 398 of 1997 and the
appeals were also rejected by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 15.7.1997, The attempt made by the appellant Corporation
to move the Supreme Court also ended in failure and the SLP filed by them in SLP (Civil) No. 21146 of 1997 was disposed of on 12.01.1998.
When the matter attained the finality and the orders of this Court have been approved by the Supreme Court, it is surprising to note that a giant
Public Sector Undertaking like the appellant, should keep on litigating the matter without giving quietus to the matter. The argument that the
judgment in the Steel Authority of India Limited Case (cited supra) conclude the issue cannot be accepted because the Supreme Court in the very
same judgment itself had stated that the judgment can have only prospective operation and paragraph 125(4) of the judgment is usefully extracted
below:
We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case prospectively and declare that any decision issued by any industrial adjudicator / any
court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in AIR India case shall hold good and that the same shall
not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.
The further argument that there was no post of Radio Operator under the relevant Recruitment Rules is an argument, which is contrary to the
records of the appellant Corporation. In the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations [for short, ''RPR''] 1980 dated 25.4.1980, the earlier RPR of
1974 were modified and new designation has been given to the old post. Annexure A to RPR 1980 clearly shows that in item No. 22, the post of
Radio Operator is presently designated as Marine Radio Operator and in the very same Rules, the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator has
also been mentioned in Serial No. 19 in Schedule 1 and it has become a feeder category for promotion to the post of Marine Radio Operator.
Therefore, the argument that there is no such post as Radio Operator as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, is clearly and not borne out by
records. Further, as can be seen from the records produced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that most of the workmen have
proper qualification for holding the post and it is not that they are getting the post without any basic qualification.
The further argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the Award dated 26.5,1989 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No. 88 of 1997
will operate as res judicata can never be accepted because it is a non-speaking order and it is rejected without reference on the ground of the
memo filed by the appellant Corporation stating that the workers have been absorbed as Junior Helper and, therefore, Industrial Dispute would
have become infructuous. This stand taken by the appellant Corporation fails to take into account the conclusive order passed by this Court
directing the appellant Corporation to absorb the workmen in terms of the ratio laid down in Air India Statutory Corporation case (cited supra)
and in the teeth of such an order, which has also attained finality by the Apex Court, no order of any Tribunal rejecting the reference can nullify
such a positive mandamus issued by this Court.
Further, it is the core of contention between the parties that while the appellant Corporation was insisting that they have absorbed the workmen
as Junior Helper, it is the consistent stand of the respondents that they are entitled to be absorbed in the cadre in which they were earlier
discharging their duties and not to that of any lower category thereby defeating the consistent claim made all these years.
Further, the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation that the order dismissing the SLP filed
by them would not amount to confirming the order of the Division Bench of this Court directing absorption of the workmen, is neither a ground
which is available to them in terms of law nor the appellantm, being a company wholly owned Central Government, can be allowed to raise such a
plea thereby making a continuous litigation on issues which are concluded even a decade ago to once again reagitate the matter. It is unthinkable as
to how the appellant Corporation could still agitate failing to realise that the order of dismissal of S.LP. by the Apex Court would amount to
confirmation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which is between the parties before this Court. Therefore, it operates certainly
as res judicata on all issues raised therein.
We also note that the Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, far from being a model employer, is agitating the matter for over seven
years without any legal basis and it is totally not expected of an institution wholly owned by the Central Government.
Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the writ appeal and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be
no order as costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 2 of 2006 will stand closed. Since the matter has been pending before Courts for over a
decade, we hereby direct the appellant Corporation to implement the order of the learned single Judge datd 02.8.2006 within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.