PREM MAHALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions have been preferred by the Works Contract Labourers engaged cm daily wage of Rs.47.21p by the Oil India Limited, respondent No.2, for regularisation of their services and for payment of equal wages with their counter part as detailed in Annexure-III of both the writ petitions vis-a-vis for quashing the Government order communicated vide letter dated 23.11.94 refusing to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioners case is that although they are working as Works Contract Labourers under various contractors, in fact they are the direct workmen under the Oil India Limited for all intent and purposes and working as such without any interruption for the last several years discharging yarious functions of perennial nature. The petitioners are also members of Oil India Workers Association and the said Association espoused the cause of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. The Oil India Limited, entered into an agreement with Asom Tsilo Thikadari Shramik Santha and regularised the services of workers who are members of the said Association to the exclusion of the petitioners and other workers; similarly situated. According to the petitiosner, this is a case of discrimination between the similarly situated workers. The attempt by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati to resolve the dispute having failed, the Regional Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Government of India as per provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Union of India eventually refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The negative approach by the Oil India Limited and the Union of India being violative of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution, the petitioners have filed these two (2) writ petitioners to vindicate their cause.

(3.) The Oil India Limited, however, in their affidavit-in-opposition submitted that the writ petitioners are works contract labours within the meaning of the Contract Labourers (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and, as such, no relief can be given to them by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as industrial dispute can not be raised for regularisation of services of Works Contract Labourers. The appropriate Government may, however, deal with the situation as per provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1970. The respondent Oil India Limited also denied that the writ petitioners are working for about 5 to 15 years under them discharging works perennial nature. The list of workers (Annexuere-1) and their status as workmen under the Oil India Limited has also been denied vis-a-vis their claim of membership with Oil India Workers Association. It is submitted that in order to maintain peace, the Company agreed to constitute a committee comprising representatives of the Management, the Unions representing the Works Contract Labourers and the Respondent No.4, to identify the Works Contract Labourers (excluding work-charged labourers) who fulfil the condition mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1970. On proper consideration of the recommendations made by the Committee, a tripartite settlement was; signed on 14.2.1991 and the recommendations of the Committee for regularisation off 456 workers were accepted. The Oil India Workers Association refused to become signatory to the said agreement although they had taken part in the exercise undertaken by the Committee. It is contended that some of the petitioners who did not fulfil all the criteria were left out. The agreement inferred to above provided for regularisation of 456 Work Contract Labourers in a phased manner and the petitioners not being Workmen are not entitled to regularisation. Therefore, no writ could be issued under Article 226 directing their regularisation in the services of the Oil India Limited.