Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
MATHURA REFINERY MAZDOOR SANGH THROUGHITS SECRETARY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MATHURA REFINERYPROJECT, MATHUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1991
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (1) 468 1991 SCC (2) 176
JT 1991 (1) 472 1991 SCALE (1)297
ACT:
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971:
Mathura Refinery-Casual Labourers-Some Labourers forming Co-
operative Societies and entering contracts with refinery
while others working under contractors who have contracts
with refinery-Claim for regularisation and parity with
employees of refinery-Casual labourers held not employees of
refinery and hence not entitled for absorption in refinery.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant-Union, representing about 900 casual
labourers falling under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1971 some of whom formed Co-operative
societies and entered into contracts with the respondent-
refinery while others worked for contractors who had
contracts with the refinery, filed a writ petition in this
court claiming parity in wages and service conditions with
the regular workmen of the respondent-refinery. This Court
disposed the petition by directing the Central Government to
refer to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication the
questions whether the petitioners and some of the workmen
whose services were terminated were employees of the
refinery; whether their termination was justified and to
what relief they were entitled to. The Government referred
and the Tribunal decided the questions against the
appellant-union by holding that the labourers were employees
of the contractors and not of the refinery and their
termination was justified. But the Tribunal gave certain
directions by way of relief for consideration by the
Advisory Board about the desirability of continuance of the
contract system in the refinery, for providing minimum pay
of scale of regular employees to the contract labour and
giving them preference in the regular employment.
Against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the Union
filed an appeal in this Court praying for directions to the
refinery to absorb and regularise the casual labourers in a
phased manner.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
469
HELD:The contract laboures are not, and have also not
been found to be, having a direct connection with the
Refinery, even though it is a State for the purpose of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
enforcement of fundamental rights. The directions given by
the Tribunal was the only relief which was due to the
appellant_union and its members. Hence the Tribunal has
given to the appellant -union the maximum which could be
given in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the impugned Award of the Tribunal cannot be
improved upon. [472E-F]
BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors. etc.
v. Union of India and Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 630, referred
to.
Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees
Association and Ors. V. State Of Karnataka and Ors., [1990]
2 SCC 396, distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 1430 of
1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.1989 of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in
I.D. No. 40 of 1986.
N.B. Shetye and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.
Ashok H. Desai, R.P. Bhatt. P.H. Parekh and Mrs.
Sumita Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 40 of 1986
published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated
21.10-89.
The appellant is the Mathura Refinery Mazdoor
Sangh (here-after referred to as ’Union’). The
contesting respondent is the Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura, U.P.
(hereafter referred to as the ’Refinery’). The Union
represents about 900 casual labourers working in the
Refinery. These labourers are contract labourers coming
under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,
1971. The nature of their work has grouped them .Some
of the labourers have formed themselves into
cooperative societies and those societies have entered into
labour contracts with
470
the Refinery. Other labourers are working under
labour contractors who have contracts with the Refinery.
Theirs is not a constant relationship with one
contractor and these labourers keep shifting from one
contractor to another. However it is claimed that these
casual labourers, have been working in the Refinery
for so many years in the past ranging between ten to
fifteen years but they are denied wages and other
benefits as also other beneficial service conditions
enjoyed by workmen who are regular employees of the
Refinery. Claiming that they had a right to be treated at
par with regular employees, the Union filed Writ
Petition No. 2876 of 1985 under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India in this Court which was disposed
of on January 16, 1986 by directing the Central
Government to refer to the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication the following questions:
1. Whether, in law, the petitioners and the
48 workmen whose services have been
terminated are employees of the Indian
Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery Project,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Mathura?
2. Whether the termination of the services
of 48 workmen was justified? and
3. To what relief are the workmen entitled?"
Status quo was ordered to be maintained and the
services of the workmen were ordered not to be
terminated. At that time, the services of 48 workmen
alone were involved but as is evident the
adjudication of the Tribunal would have affected others
too.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Central
Government referred and the Industrial Tribunal
decided the above referred questions holding that
the workmen were not employees of the Refinery and
were rather the employees of the contractors. With
regard to the termination of the services of the workmen
and to what relief they were entitled, the Tribunal,
after answering the questions against the Union and in
favour of the Refinery, suggested the following steps
in the interest of Industrial harmony:
(i) Though the Union should have pressed their
demand for abolition of the contract labour system in
the Refinery to the Central Advisory Board
constituted under the Act, and even though it had
been pursuing its remedies before this Court and the
Tribunal, suggestions were made to the Refinery to
approach
471
the Advisory Board to make a study with regard to
the desirability of continuance of the contract
labour system in the Refinery.
(ii) Till the Central Advisory Board makes its
recommendations and the action is taken, the
management of the Refinery to ensure that the
contract labour is paid at least the minimum of the
pay scale of its regular employees performing the
same or similar duties as the workmen of the contract
labour and further that the workmen among the
contract labour who have put in 5 years or more
of work at the Mathura Refinery shall be
continued to be employed in the same work even
if there is a change in the contractor and such
workmen shall not be terminated except as a
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary
action for misconduct, etc., voluntary retirement or
retirement on reaching the age of superannuation (which
may be taken as the superannuation age for the I.O.C.
employees) or on ground of continuous ill-health.
(iii) Refinery to give preference to those workmen
in its employment by waiving the requirement of age and
other qualifications wherever possible and it may also
consider the creation of a benevolent fund for the
contract labour wherein it may make a lumpsum
contribution initially and then make equivalent or even
more contribution to match the contribution made by the
workmen of the contract labour.
Having suggested these, the Tribunal has clarified that
these ameliorative steps, if taken by the Refinery, shall
not be taken to mean that the contract labour has become the
direct employees of the Refinery.
Learned counsel for the appellant says that though
the above suggestions, which have the colour of directions,
are in accord with the decision of this Court in 13HEL
workers Association, Hardwar and Others etc. v. Union of
India and Others, [ 1985] 1 SCC 630 yet they fall short of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the expectancies of the Union and in particular to the wide
sweep of the principles laid down by this Court in Dharwad
Distt P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and
Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, [ 1990] 2 SCC 396
and prayed for directions such as those given to the State
of Karnataka in the Dharwad’s case (supra).
The argument of the learned counsel has barely to
be noted and
472
rejected. The Tribunal has given to the appellant-Union the
maximum which could be given in the facts and circumstances
of the, case. In Dharwad’s case (supra), the State of
Karnataka had itself come out with a scheme to absorb the
casual workers in regular government service in a phased
manner and though it did not satisfy all concerned, yet it
was given a workable final shape. This Court observed as
follows:
"Though the, scheme so finalised is not the ideal
one but it is the obligation of the court to
individualise justice to suit a given situation in
a set of facts that are placed before it. Under
the scheme of the Constitution the purse remains
in the hands of the executive. The legislature of
the State controls the Consolidated Fund out of
which the expenditure to be incurred, in giving
effect to the scheme, will have to be met. The
flow into the Consolidated Fund depends upon the
policy of taxation depending perhaps on the
capacity of the payer. Therefore, unduly
burdening the State for implementing the
constitutional obligation forth with would create
problems which the State may not be able to
handle. Therefore, the directions have been made
with judicious restraint."
Those casual workers were under the employment of the State
and the State came out with a scheme for phased absorption
and a graded financial responsibility. In the instant case
before us, the contract labourers are not, and have also not
been found to be, having a direct connection with the
Refinery, even though it is a State for the purpose of
enforcement of fundamental rights.The suggestions/directions
given by the Tribunal, appear to us to be the only relief
which was due to the appellant and its members in the given
situation and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned Award
of the Tribunal cannot be improved upon.
Finding no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the same.
No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
473