Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD versus INDIAN OIL UNITED CONTRACT

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Indian Oil United Contract - Writ Appeal No.3222 of 2002 [2005] RD-TN 201 (14 March 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 14/03/2005

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN Writ Appeal No.3222 of 2002

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

rep. by its Executive Director

Southern Region

139 Nungambakkam High Road,

Madras-600 034. .. Appellant -Vs-

1. Indian Oil United Contract

Labour Union

rep. by its Joint Secretary

V. Krishnamoorthy

79 Thirumangai Manan Street

Sundaram Colony

East Tambaram

Madras 600 059.

2. The Union of India

rep. by its Secretary

Labour and Employment

New Delhi.

3. The Asst. Labour Commissioner

(Registration) (Central)

Sastri Bhavan,

20, Haddows Road,

Madras-6.

4. Polite Maintenance Services

rep. by its Proprietor

J.A. Victor

28 Murali Street

Mahalingapuram

Madras 600 034. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in Writ Petition No.18992 of 1996 dated 27.9.2002. For appellant : Mr. AL. Somayaji

Senior Counsel

for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

For respondent 1: Mr. R. Natarajan

For respondents : Mr. S. Manikumar

2 and 3 Sr. Central Govt.

Standing Counsel

For respondent 4: No appearance

:JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

The Honourable The Chief Justice)

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.9.2002.

2. We have heard Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. S. Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. None has appeared for the fourth respondent although the name of the counsel for the fourth respondent has been shown in the cause list.

3. The writ petitioner is a Trade Union and in the writ petition it prayed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Registration Order dated 30.11.1992 and direct the third respondent Indian Oil Corporation to consider the claim of the workers of the petitioner Union for absorption and regularisation according to law.

4. The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The learned single Judge in paragraph 16 of his judgment has directed the respondent Indian Oil Corporation to continue to engage the 32 workers whose names are found in the Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He has further directed that their engagement shall be uninterrupted till their services are regularised or absorbed.

5. In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. As held by a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (JT 2001 (7) SC 268 = 2001 (7) SCC 1) the contract labourers are not entitled to get automatic absorption even if there is a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and these employees have to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication of their claim.

6. In Writ Appeal Nos. 1048 to 1052 and 1092 to 1094 of 1998 (The Airport Officer, Salem Airport, Salem and another vs. M. Kalaikovan and others) dated 14.3.2005, we have followed the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In view of the above, in our opinion, the judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The workers concerned should have raised an Industrial Dispute with regard to their claim for regularisation instead of directly approaching this Court. As regards the cancellation of the Registration, there is a right of appeal under Section 15 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Hence the workers had an alternative remedy. The writ petition should not have been entertained at all. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Index:Yes.

Internet: Yes.

Vu

To

1. The Secretary,

Union of India

Labour and Employment

New Delhi.

2. The Asst. Labour Commissioner

(Registration) (Central)

Sastri Bhavan,

20, Haddows Road,

Madras-6.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.