Unknown vs Union Of India & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4876 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Union Of India & Others on 15 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                               REPORTABLE
                           Judgment reserved on: 15.07.2025
                          Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             Writ Petition (M/S) No.1323 of 2013

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
                                                           --Petitioner
                                 Versus
Union of India & others
                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
     Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
     Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of
     India/respondent no.1.
     Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 5, 8 &
     9.
     Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, learned counsel holding brief of
     Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the effect and operation of the impugned notification dated 08.09.1994 annexure-1 to the writ petition during the pendency of the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the notification dated 08.09.1994 (annexure no.1 to the writ petition)."

2. The facts in brief are that the impugned notification dated 08.09.1994 was passed by Central Government prohibiting engagement of contractual workers in ONGC. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) lodged a complaint with CJM, Dehradun alleging therein that in spite of the said notification, certain contractual labours are employed with ONGC.

The case was numbered as Criminal Case No.1800 of 2012. The petitioner as a result of this case challenged the impugned notification alleging therein that the said notification can only be passed after following the mandate of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short "the Act, 1970") and the bare perusal of the aforesaid section show that the mandate of Section 10 has not been complied with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a careful perusal of Section 10 of the Act, 1970 makes it evident that sub-section 1 of Section 10 commences with a non obstante clause and overrides the other provisions of the Act empowering the appropriate government to prohibit employment of contract labour by notification in official gazette after consulting with the Central/State Advisory Board. But, in the present case, the fact remains that there has been no discussion or consultation with the Central Board as it was only the sub-committee report which has been considered. Therefore, the mandate of Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970 has not been complied with and there is no document on record to suggest that whether the sub-committee report was even considered by the Central Advisory Board or not. He further submitted that although, the sub-committee consisted of two employee's representative, two employer's representative and member convener but the final report was only signed by three of the members and the sub-committee which was constituted only visited four out of total thirty four establishments of ONGC and even in such visits, all the members never visited and there was always some deficit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the report of the sub-committee was never approved by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, therefore, the Government of India failed to follow the mandatory requirement under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970 and passed the impugned notification without application of mind and without considering the relevant factors and went on to prohibit contract laboures in total 13 works in the establishment of ONGC. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(i) Steel Authority of India & others vs. National Unit Water front Workers & others; (2001) 7 SCC 1.

(ii) L & T MCNEIL Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2001) 3 SCC 170.

(iii) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Union of India & another; (2022) SCC Online Del 2877.

(iv) Food Construction of India & another vs. Pala Ram & others; (2008) 14 SCC 32.

5. Respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit submits that the Central Government declared the prohibitory order after following the due procedure as laid down under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970 and the notification under Section 10(1) was issued after due consultation with the Central Advisory Cotract Labour Board after conducting necessary investigation upon the various parameters laid down under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1970. It is further submitted that the impugned notification is enforced since 1994 and the legality cannot be challenged at this stage after inordinate delay of around 20 years that too only to escape the penal provisions after the complaint was lodged by Labour Enforcement Officer in the court of CJM, Dehradun.

6. Respondent no.3 in its counter affidavit submits that the impugned notification is challenged after inordinate delay and there is no just explanation of this delay and the only submission made to explain the delay was that the stay order was passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh. But, the reason is not valid as the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court does not apply in other territories of India and the malafide conduct of the petitioner can only be seen from the fact that no labour union which was the affected party was made a party. It was a deliberate act and therefore, the petition should be dismissed on this very ground. It is also submitted that the malafide conduct of the petitioners can easily be seen from the bare perusal of the petition and it will be very clear that many facts like the proceedings of sub-committee and its recommendation were not disclosed before the High Court by the petitioner.

7. Respondent no.5, 8 & 9 in their counter affidavit submit that the petition is based on fundamental misreading of statute and judicial precedents. The petition's fundamental weakness lies in choosing High Court of Uttarakhand as the jurisdiction to challenge the impugned notification because of the fact that in Uttarakhand there is only one office of ONGC which employees' exclusively consisted of administrative staff and none of the 13 categories which have been barred by the impugned notification is employed over here. Moreover, the malafide conduct is also evident from the fact that no labour union was initially made a party. Petitioner also willfully withheld the central piece of evidence i.e. the sub-committee report from the court. It is also

submitted that contrary to allegations of bias or scrutiny, the sub-committee was legally constituted under Section 10 of the Act, 1970 and its numbers represented balanced interest and consisted of ONGC management, workers representative and central government officials and the sub-committee carried out extensive field visits including major ONGC operations and after thorough deliberations issued measured recommendations. They also submitted that Section 10 of the Act, 1970 vests final authority with the Central Government to abolish contract labour subject to satisfaction of statutory pre-conditions and the recommendations of the sub-committee are only advisory and guiding not binding. Therefore, the Government after duly evaluating both the opinions of majority and minority of the sub-committee implemented the impugned the notification.

8. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, the moot question before this Court is that whether the mandate of Section 10 of the Act, 1970 was followed in prohibiting employment of contract labours in the establishment of ONGC. For ready reference, Section 10 of the Act, 1970 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant

factors, such as--

(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;

(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in that establishment;

(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation.--If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final."

9. A careful reading of Section 10 makes it clear that the appropriate Government i.e. the Central Government in this case is vested with power to prohibit the employment of contractual labour, but this can only be done after consultation with the advisory board i.e. the Central Advisory Board in this case and the notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour shall be enforced by the Central Government having regards to following conditions:-

(i) Condition of work.

(ii) The benefits provided for the contract labour.

(iii) Other relevant factors which are specified in clauses (a to d) of sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Act, 1970.

But, the said notification can only be brought into effect after consultation with the Central Advisory Board. The perusal of the records of the case in hand go on to show that there was no consultation whatsoever between the Central Advisory Board and the Central Government and the Central Government

prohibited the employment of contractual labour only adopting the sub-committee's report and the report was never endorsed by the Central Advisory Board. Furthermore, there is one more lacunae in the impugned notification that the sub-committee only visited 4 out of 34 establishments of ONGC operating in different spheres in different part of the country and passing the impugned notification after only visiting 4 of such establishments cannot be said to be just application of mind in releasing the impugned notification. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the mandate of Section 10 was not followed in releasing the impugned notification and thus the notification needs to be quashed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India & others vs. National Unit Water front Workers & others; (2001) 7 SCC 1 has held that the provisions of Section 10(2) of the

Act, 1970 are mandatory and non-adverting to the essentials referred to in Section 10(1) would render the notification void.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 08.09.1994 annexure-1 to the writ petition stands quashed.

11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.10.2025 AK