THE STANDARD.VACUUM REFINING CO. OF INDIA LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 06-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Assam oil Co. 
v. 
Its TV 0rk1nen 
Gajendragadkar } . 
April 6. 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960J 
be set aside. We would accordingly set aside the order 
of reinstatement and direct that the appellant should 
pay to Miss Scott Rs. 12,500 as compensation. The 
order in respect of bonus has n!it been challenged and 
is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. 
Appeal partly allowed. 
•THE STANDARD.VACUUM REFINING CO. 
OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Abolition of contract system of labour-
Dispute raised by regular workmen of company-Reference to Tribu-
nal, if competent-Industrial Dispu.tes Act, r947 (r4 of r947), 
SS. 2 (k), IO. 
A dispute was raised by the respondents, the workmen of the 
appeJlant company, with respect to contract labour employed by 
it for cleaning maintenance work at the refinery including pre-
mises and plant belonging to it. They made a demand for aboli-
tion of the contract system and for absorbing the workmen 
employed through the contractors into the regular service of the 
company. 
The matter was referred to the Tribunal under s. IO 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947· The company objected to 
the reference on the grounds (1) that it was incompetent inasmuch 
as there was no dispute between it and the respondents and it 
was not open to them to raise a dispute with respect to the work-
men of some other employer, viz., the contractor, and (2) in any 
case, it was for the company to decide what was the best method 
of carrying on its business and the Tribunal could not interfere 
with that function of the management. 
The Tribunal held that 
the reference was competent and on the merits it was of opinion 
that the work which was being done through the contractor was 
necessary for the company to be done daily, that doing this work 
through annual contracts resulted in the deprivation of security 
of service and other benefits, privileges, leave, etc., of the.work-
men of the contractor and that therefore the contract system with 
respect to this work should be abolished: 
Held, (1) that the dispute in the present case was an 
industrial dispute within the meaning of s. 2(k) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted in Workmen of Dimakuchi 
Tea Estate v. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, [1958), 
\.. 
.. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPO~TS 
467 
S.C.R. n56, because (i) the respondents had a community of 
r960 
interest with the workmen of the contractor, (ii) they had also 
· a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the dispute in Standard Vacuum 
the sense that the class to which they belonged, namely, work-
Refining Co. of 
m~n, was substantially affected thereby, and (iii) the company 
India Ltd. 
could give relief in the matter. 
· 
v. 
The reference was, accordingly, competent. 
Its Wo1kmen 
(2) that the direction given by the Tribunal that the contract 
system should be abolished was just in the circumstances of the 
case and should not be interfered with. 
D. Macropollo and Co. (P) Ltd. v. D. Macropollo and Co. (P) 
Ltd. Employees' Union, A.LR. 1958 S.C. 1012, distinguished. 
C1v1i. 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 130 of 1959. 
Appeal by special .leave ·Jfrom the Award dated 
September 5, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, 
in Reference (I.T.) No. 187 of 1958. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, G. B. Pai 
and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellants. 
H. R. Gokhale, S. B. Naik and K. R. Ohaudhury, for 
respondent No. 1. 
1960. April 6. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
W ANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave in 
Wanchoo J. 
an industrial matter. The appellant is The Standard 
Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited (herein-
after called the company). 
A dispute was raised by 
the workmen of the company (hereinafter called the 
respondents) with respect to contract labour employed 
by the company for cleaning maintenance of the , 
refinery, (plant and premises) belonging to the com-
pany. The system in force in the company is that 
this work is given to contractors for a period of one 
year from October 1 to September 30. 
At the time 
when the reference was made the contract was with 
Ramji Gordhan and Company for the period from 
October 1, 1957, to September 30, 1958. 
On April 27, 
1957, the respondents made a demand for abolition of 
the contract system that prevailed in the company 
and for a)Jsorbing the workm

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