ONGC LABOUR UNION versus ONGC DEHRADUN & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 17-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
ONGC LABOUR UNION
v.
ONGC DEHRADUN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8114 of 2019)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
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
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 458
458
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
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 Sub-
Committee was constituted and what were its recommendations”.
The Central Government also failed to project that any
ONGC LABOUR UNION v. ONGC DEHRADUN & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
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, coul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.