KHAGEN KONWAR Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the nine (9) petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is that they have been engaged by the Deputy Superintending Engineer, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Lakwa Unit, for daily cleaning, maintenance and allied works, etc. since the year 1988 through the work orders issued from time to time. Their further case is that although in the work orders the petitioners have been referred to as contractors, the petitioners themselves have been doing the aforesaid work relating to daily cleaning, maintenance, allied works, etc. bringing additional persons as and when necessary to carry out the said work. Despite the fact that the petitioners have rendered their services for such daily cleaning, maintenance and allied works in the Lakwa Unit of the respondent No.4 continuously for more than 12 years, the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, (for short, "the corporation"), has issued a notice on May 23, 2000 in the newspaper inviting tenders, (for short, "the NIT") for award of operation and maintenance contract for upkeeping and environment jobs in various installations at Lakwa/Lakmani/Demulgaon of the Eastern Region Business Centre of the said Corporation. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said NIT because if pursuant to the said NIT operation and maintenance work in the Lakwa Unit of the Corporation is given to some other tenderers, the petitioners as well as other personnel engaged in such operation and maintenance work in the said Lakwa Unit of the Corporation will be without any work and as a consequence without any livelihood. The petitioners have therefore prayed for the quashing the said NIT dated May 23, 2000 and for directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the Lakwa Unit of the Corporation with immediate effect. When the writ petition was moved on June 16, 2000, the Court issued a notice of motion and directed as an interim measure that tenders be received pursuant to the impugned NIT and processed, but no final orders be passed by the respondent authorities awarding the contract to any of the parties until further orders.

(2.) In response to the notice of the Court, the respondents 1 to 4 have appeared and filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that the Field In-charge of the Installations of the Corporation have been engaging contractors from time to time for cleaning of oil spillage inside the installations/boilers, disposal and spreading of sand, house-keeping/upkeeping of installation and office block, preparation of chemical solution in various Group Gathering Stations where crude oil extracted from various wells are treated dosing of chemicals in Water Injection Pump, loading/unloading and other similar nature of jobs, and the aforesaid jobs done through the contractors are not of perennial nature but are of seasonal nature and are neither connected with nor incidental to the main activities of the Corporation which is production of crude oil. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondents 1 to 4 have further stated that the scope of such work varies from time to time as per requirement and the workers employed by the contractors work directly under the control and supervision of the contractors who are responsible for payment of their wages. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents 1 to 4 have denied that the petitioners have been awarded such work continuously since 1988, and have stated that the contracts have been awarded to the petitioners for different temporary jobs as and when necessary for doing such work arose in the Installations. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents 1 to 4 have further stated that different work orders annexed to the writ petition would show that the petitioners are not contract labourers but are contractors. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondents 1 to 4 have also stated that as a matter of fact, the petitioner No. 1 has participated as a tenderer pursuant to the impugned NIT and his tender has been found to be valid, and it is therefore not open to the petitioners and more particularly the petitioner No. 1 to challenge the impugned NIT. The respondents 1 to 4 also stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that there is no post in the Corporation for doing the particular jobs which have been done under the contract and hence the question of absorption of the petitioners in the service of the Corporation does not arise. The respondents 1 to 4 have also filed Miscellaneous Case No. 1104/2000 for vacating the interim order dated June 16, 2000 passed by this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) FOWETH which had submitted a tender in response to the NIT filed Miscellaneous Case No. 150/2001 for being impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition and on Feburary 15, 2001 this Court allowed the said application and impleaded FOWETH as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. The said respondent No. 5 has also filed Miscellaneous Case No. 149/2001 for vacating the interim order dated June 16, 2000 passed in the writ petition. In the Miscellaneous Case application the respondent No. 5 has stated, inter alia, that pursuant to the NIT the respondent No. 5 submitted its tender and the tenders were opened on June 19, 2000 and the Corporation completed the tender process but could not award the contract to any of the tenderers due to the interim order passed by this Court on February 16, 2000, and the respondent No.5 is eagerly awaiting for issuance of work order. The respondent No. 5 has also stated that it has submitted a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50,000.00 along with its tender as per the terms and conditions of the NIT, and has been paying 7% interest to the Bank regularly. The aforesaid two applications for vacating the interim order, viz., Miscellaneous Case No. 1104/2000 and Miscellaneous Case No. 149/2001 were taken up along with the writ petition for hearing.