PURBANCHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 3 April 2018

698

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. 698

[2018] 6 S.C.R.

AONGC PURBANCHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3511 of 2018)

B

APRIL 03, 2018

[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Appeal: Intra Court appeal – Scope of – Industrial Tribunalpassed an award directing regularization of the workers – SingleCJudge of the High Court upheld the award – Division Bench ofHigh Court taking the view that matter needs a fresh look by theTribunal – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – A perusal of the awardpassed by the Industrial Tribunal and detailed analysis made bythe Single Judge, show that there is no scope for the IndustrialDTribunal to adjudicate on any further aspect – All relevant aspectswere considered meticulously by the Single Judge – Being a writproceedings, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra courtappeal, primarily to consider the correctness or otherwise of theview taken by the Single Judge – The Division Bench is required toconsider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness ofEthe judgment of the Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter tothe Tribunal – Thus, impugned judgment of the Division Bench isset aside and matter remitted to it to dispose of writ appeals onmerits – Service Law.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National UnionFWaterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1 :[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 106 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 106referred to Para 4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3511Gof 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2012 of the High Courtof Gauhati in W. A. No. 266 of 2004

WITH

Civil Appeal No.3512 of 2018.H

Pravir Choudhary, Reepak Kansal, Advs. for the Appellant.

J. P. Cama, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Ms. Kumud Lata Das,Ms. Devyani Ashra, Nayan K., S. S. Ray, Ms. S. Usha Reddy, RajBahadur, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the judgmentof the Division Bench of the High Court remitting an industrial dispute tothe Industrial Tribunal. There are two set of references before theIndustrial Tribunal. In Civil Appeal No......... @ SLP(c) No.23494/2012,the reference is as follows:- “1. Whether the 22 contract labour as per Annexure ‘A’ areperforming permanent and perennial nature of job in theestablishment of ONGC Ltd. Sibsagar and are entitled for regularemployment in ONGC if so, to what relief they are entitled?

2. Whether the contract labour as per Annexure ‘B’ are performingsame or similar nature of work as being performed by any of theregular employee of ONGC Ltd. Sibsagar and are entitled forwages and the benefits as is admissible to other contract labourunder 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, thereference reads as follows:- “Whether the claim of ONGC Contractual Mazdoor Sangha Lakwaregarding regularization of services of their members (who areworking as contractual workers) in ONGC Ltd. at Lakwa isjustified? If so, to what relief, the workmen are entitled?”

4. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award directing regularizationof the workers. The same was upheld by the learned Single Judge.

5. However, the Division Bench took the view that the matterneeds a fresh look by the Industrial Tribunal in the light of the decision inSteel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union WaterfrontWorkers & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. The Bench took the viewthat the Industrial Tribunal needs to decide as to whether there was agenuine contract.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

6. Aggrieved, the workmen represented by their Associations arebefore this Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Pravir Choudhury, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant, Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing forthe ONGC and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing for theBUnion of India, assisted by other counsel.

8. On going through the award passed by the Industrial Tribunaland detailed analysis made by the learned Single Judge, we find thatthere is hardly any scope for the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate on anyfurther aspect. All relevant aspects have been considered meticulouslyCby the learned Single Judge. Being a writ proceedings, the DivisionBench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly toconsider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learnedSingle Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to considerthe appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgmentof the learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter to the Tribunal.

D

9. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgmentsof the Division Bench and remit the matters to the High Court. Werequest the Division Bench to dispose of the writ appeals on meritsexpeditiously, preferably within six months from today.

E10. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

FAnkit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

G

H