Labour Laws:
Notification issued u/s. 10(1) of CLRA Act – Prohibiting employment of contract labour in different categories of work in ONGC – Notification challenged by ONGC before High Court – High Court quashed the Notification – Appeal to Supreme Court by ONGC Labour Union (who were not impleaded as party before High Court) – Held: High Court judgment was passed without being apprised of the relevant material and primarily on the basis of judgment in *SAIL case which was related to 1976 Notification – The Notification has a direct impact on the workmen of ONGC – Since the opportunity to be heard was denied to the workmen as the Labour Union was not impleaded, matter is remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – s. 10(1).
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD : The notification issued under s. 10 (1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting contract labour would directly impact the workmen in the ONGC but in the writ petitions filed before the two High Courts, the ONGC management chose not to array any of the recognised labour Unions. Hence, the affected contract labourers in the ONGC were denied the opportunity to participate in the writ proceedings in the concerned High Courts. [Para 11] [467-D-E]
2. The impugned judgment indicates that the High Court had no access to the previous exercise undertaken by the Central Government, leading to issuance of the impugned notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. The factum of constitution of the sub-committees prior to the issuance of the impugned notification and the studies made by the sub-committees and the nature of their recommendations, were not brought to the notice of the High Court. Besides, the Court was made to believe that the Central Government had not consulted the Labour Advisory Board. Thus, wrong inference was drawn on incorrect premises and the High Court proceeded under the presumptive footing as if there was non-application of mind by the Central Government. [Para 12] [467-F-G]
3. The High Court rendered the impugned judgment primarily on the basis of the *SAIL verdict since none of the relevant materials for the 1994 notification were produced in the High Court. Crucially, when the impugned notification was issued, the Central Government did not have the benefit of the *SAIL judgment rendered on 30.08.2001 which again related to the 1976 notification. The primary focus of the challenge in the 30.08.2001 *SAIL verdict was to the previous notification (S.O. No.776 (E) dated 09.12.1976) issued by the Central Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in respect of four categories of works in establishments, inter-alia, of the ONGC. It was necessary for the High Court to determine whether the observations made for the then impugned 09.12.1976 notification would also apply with all vigour, to the presently impugned notification (08.09.1994), issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. More particularly, the High Court should have determined whether the prohibitory notification was preceded by the required enquiry on contract labour by the Sub-Committee, the nature of the study by the Sub-Committee, whether the views of the stakeholders were noticed by the Committee members and the implications of those, on the decision of the Central Government. The impugned judgment shows that no material was placed before the High Court to indicate “……….what inquiry/material was carried out to meet the requirements provided under sub-section
(2) of Section of the Act, 1970. There is no reference when the SubCommittee was constituted and what were its recommendations”. The Central Government also failed to project that any consultation was made with the Central Advisory Labour Board. [Paras 14 and 15] [468-B-H]
4. The High Court’s Judgment was passed without being apprised of the relevant materials and primarily on the basis of the *SAIL judgment which however related to the 1976 notification. This has resulted in prejudice for those who, given the opportunity, could have apprised the High Court with all facts and the detailed study/discussion by the Sub-Committees, preceding the 08.09.1994 notification. [Para 16] [469-A-B]
5. Therefore, since no opportunity was provided to the appellant Labour Union in a case, which directly concerns the members of the ONGC Labour Union and other workman, it would be appropriate to order restoration of the Writ Petition No.1323 of 2013 (M/S), in the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand for fresh consideration. The appellant i.e., the ONGC Labour Union – Gujarat is ordered to be impleaded in the restored proceedings. Other recognized labour Unions within ONGC may also be vitally interested and such concerned Labour Unions must also be impleaded in the High Court. [Para 17] [469-C-E] *Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC
1 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 343 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.