Pratap Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2976 Del

           $~10 (2021)
           *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

           %                                        Decision delivered on: 08.11.2021

           +       LPA 8/2021 & CM No. 608/2021, 39347/2021

                   PRATAP SINGH                                       ..... Appellant
                                      Through:      Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, with Mr.
                                                    Nitin Jain, Advs.
                                      versus

                   INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR
                                                              ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. V.N. Koura, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-

2/UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. On the previous date i.e., 29.07.2021, we had recorded the following:-

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for a brief while.

1.1 The record shows that, an award dated 15.09.1989 was passed whereby, broadly, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi (in short 'CGIT') concluded that the contract between respondent no. 1/IOCL and the contract labour employed with its Mathura refinery, was genuine.

1.2. The CGIT, inter alia, via the aforesaid award, issued a direction for continuation of the workers among the contract labour who had put in 5 years or more of service, at the Mathura refinery, of respondent no.1 IOCL.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:12.11.2021 12:43 1.3. The workers had carried the challenge to the aforesaid award dated 15.09.1989 to the Supreme Court, which failed. The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.02.1991 sustained the said award passed by the CGIT.

1.4. Thereafter, on 09.11.1998, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 (in short 'CLRA') was issued, prohibiting employment of contract labour, which covered the workers herein. This notification has been challenged by respondent no. 1 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) by way of a writ petition filed in this Court. The writ petition is numbered as W.P.(C)No.426/1999 and is pending adjudication.

2. The position which emerges is that, the first round of litigation between the parties has led to the contract obtaining between them being found genuine. Therefore, if the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 is followed, there could be two outcomes: - 2.1 First, if the writ petition is allowed and the aforementioned notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA is set aside, the IOCL can, then, engage contractual labour. 2.2 Second, which is the other scenario, if the writ petition is dismissed and the aforementioned notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA is sustained, the only relief the workers can seek is absorption as regular employees, if they are able to show that the contract was a mere ruse and/or a camouflage. As noticed above, in the first round of litigation, this aspect seems to have attained finality.

3. Mr. Parvmder Chauhan, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that, after the order of the Supreme Court dated 15.02.1991, much water has flown and that the appellant would be able to demonstrate that the arrangement between the parties was a mere sham and/or ruse.

3.1. In our view, prima facie, the aforementioned assertion of Mr Chauhan, as regards the arrangement between the parties, seems to be somewhat difficult, and therefore, we have asked Mr. Chauhan to obtain instructions in the matter as to whether the appellant would want to press ahead with the impugned

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:12.11.2021 12:43 reference made to the CGIT dated 10.05.2016[which was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement dated 30.01.2020].

4. List the matter for directions on 08.11.2021"

2. We may note that, the appellant has been authorised to represent other persons as well i.e., those whose names and other necessary details are given in the document marked as "Annexure A/1", which is appended on pages 37 to 41 of the case file. The said persons are arrayed as respondent nos. 2 to 35 and 37 to 52 in the underlying writ petition, from which the present appeal arises.

3. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, who appears for the appellant, says that, the only reason why the appellant had to prefer a fresh reference was that the respondent no. 1/IOCL has not accepted and/or recognised the fact that the concerned workmen [who were arrayed as respondent nos. 2 to 52 in W.P.(C.) 7645/2016] were employed by the contractor for the benefit of the Commented [D1]: Added

respondent no.1/ IOCL.

3.1. Mr. V.N. Koura, who appears for respondent no.1/IOCL, says that, he has no hesitation in accepting that the persons referred to by Mr. Chauhan are the employees of the transporter i.e., the contractor, and that they would continue to get emoluments and/or all benefits, which are paid and/or made available to a contractual employee.

4. In view of the statement made by Mr. Koura, Mr. Chauhan says that he does not wish to press the appeal any further.

5. The appeal is, thus, disposed of, in terms of the statement made by Mr. Koura. The respondents shall remain bound by the statements made before the Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:12.11.2021 12:43

6. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.

7. The case papers shall stand consigned to record.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TALWANT SINGH, J NOVERMBER 08, 2021/nk Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:12.11.2021 12:43