REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 3511/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO(S).23494/2012)

ONGC PURBANCHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 3512/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO(S). 23495/2012 )

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court  remitting  an  industrial  dispute  to  the Industrial Tribunal.  There are two set of references before  the  Industrial  Tribunal.   In  Civil  Appeal No......... @ SLP(c) No.23494/2012, the reference is as follows:-

1

“1.  Whether  the  22  contract  labour  as  per Annexure  'A'  are  performing  permanent  and perennial nature of job in the establishment of ONGC Ltd. Sibsagar and are entitled for regular employment in ONGC if so, to what relief they are entitled? 2. Whether the contract labour as per Annexure 'B' are performing same or similar nature of work as being performed by any of the regular employee of ONGC Ltd. Sibsagar and are entitled for wages and  the  benefits  as  is  admissible  to  other contract  labour  under  Rule  25(2)(v)(a)  of  the C.L. (RIA) cum Central Rules, 1971?  If so, to what relief they are entitled?”

3. In  Civil  Appeal  No.........  @  SLP(c) No.23495/2012, the reference reads as follows:-

“Whether the claim of ONGC Contractual Mazdoor Sangha Lakwa regarding regularization of services of their members (who are working as contractual workers) in ONGC Ltd. at Lakwa is justified?  If so, to what relief, the workmen are entitled?”

4. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award directing regularization of the workers.  The same was upheld by the learned Single Judge. 5. However, the Division Bench took the view that the  matter  needs  a  fresh  look  by  the  Industrial Tribunal  in  the  light  of  the  decision  in  Steel Authority  of  India  Ltd.  &  Ors.  v.  National  Union Waterfront  Workers  &  Ors., reported  in (2001) 7

2

SCC 1.  The Bench took the view that the Industrial Tribunal needs to decide as to whether there was a genuine contract. 6. Aggrieved,  the  workmen  represented  by  their Associations are before this Court. 7. We  have  heard  Mr.  Pravir  Choudhury,  learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing for the ONGC and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, assisted by other counsel. 8. On  going  through  the  award  passed  by  the Industrial Tribunal and detailed analysis made by the learned Single Judge, we find that there is hardly any scope for the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on  any further  aspect.  All relevant  aspects have been  considered  meticulously  by  the  learned  Single Judge.  Being a writ proceedings, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of  the  view  taken  by  the  learned  Single  Judge. Hence,  in  our  view,  the  Division  Bench  needs  to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness  of  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single Judge,  instead  of  remitting  the  matter  to  the Tribunal. 9. In  that view  of the  matter, we  set aside  the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and remit the  matters  to  the  High  Court.   We  request  the Division  Bench  to  dispose  of  the  writ  appeals  on merits  expeditiously,  preferably  within  six  months from today. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

3

11. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.........................J.               [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]  

.........................J.               [NAVIN SINHA]  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 03, 2018.

4