http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MATHURA REFINERY MAZDOOR SANGH THROUGHITS SECRETARY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MATHURA REFINERYPROJECT, MATHUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1991

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 468        1991 SCC  (2) 176  JT 1991 (1)   472        1991 SCALE  (1)297

ACT:      Contract  Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,  1971: Mathura Refinery-Casual Labourers-Some Labourers forming Co- operative  Societies  and entering contracts  with  refinery while  others working under contractors who  have  contracts with  refinery-Claim  for  regularisation  and  parity  with employees of refinery-Casual labourers held not employees of refinery and hence not entitled for absorption in refinery.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant-Union,  representing  about  900  casual labourers falling under the Contract Labour (Regulation  and Abolition)  Act,  1971  some  of  whom  formed  Co-operative societies  and entered into contracts with  the  respondent- refinery  while  others  worked  for  contractors  who   had contracts  with the refinery, filed a writ petition in  this court  claiming parity in wages and service conditions  with the regular workmen of the respondent-refinery.  This  Court disposed the petition by directing the Central Government to refer  to  the  Industrial  Tribunal  for  adjudication  the questions  whether the petitioners and some of  the  workmen whose  services  were  terminated  were  employees  of   the refinery;  whether  their termination was justified  and  to what  relief they were entitled to. The Government  referred and   the  Tribunal  decided  the  questions   against   the appellant-union by holding that the labourers were employees of  the  contractors  and  not of  the  refinery  and  their termination  was justified.  But the Tribunal  gave  certain directions  by  way  of  relief  for  consideration  by  the Advisory Board about the desirability of continuance of  the contract  system in the refinery, for providing minimum  pay of  scale  of regular employees to the contract  labour  and giving them preference in the regular employment.      Against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the Union filed an appeal in this Court praying for directions to  the refinery to absorb and regularise the casual labourers in  a phased manner.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court,                                                        469      HELD:The contract laboures are  not, and have also  not been  found  to  be, having a  direct  connection  with  the Refinery,  even  though  it is a State for  the  purpose  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

enforcement  of fundamental rights. The directions given  by the  Tribunal  was the only relief which was  due   to   the appellant_union  and  its members.  Hence the  Tribunal  has given  to the  appellant -union the maximum which  could  be given   in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of   the   case. Therefore,  the  impugned Award of the  Tribunal  cannot  be improved upon. [472E-F]      BHEL   Workers  Association,  Hardwar  and  Ors.   etc. v.  Union   of India and Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 630,  referred to.      Dharwad  Distt.  P.W.D. Literate Daily  Wage  Employees Association and Ors. V. State Of Karnataka and Ors.,  [1990] 2 SCC 396, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 1430  of 1990.      From  the  Judgment  and  Order  dated  21.10.1989   of the    Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi  in I.D. No. 40 of 1986.      N.B. Shetye and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.           Ashok  H. Desai, R.P. Bhatt. P.H. Parekh and  Mrs. Sumita Sharma for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special  leave  is  directed against    the  Award    of    the    Central     Government Industrial Tribunal,  New  Delhi,  in I.D. No.  40  of  1986 published   in  the  Gazette  of  India,  New   Delhi  dated 21.10-89.      The   appellant  is  the  Mathura   Refinery    Mazdoor Sangh     (here-after   referred  to   as   ’Union’).    The contesting   respondent   is  the Indian   Oil   Corporation Ltd.,     Mathura    Refinery    Project,    Mathura,   U.P. (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  ’Refinery’).  The   Union represents  about 900  casual  labourers  working   in   the Refinery.  These  labourers are  contract  labourers  coming under  the  Contract  Labour  (Regulation & Abolition)  Act, 1971. The nature  of  their  work  has  grouped  them .Some of   the    labourers   have    formed    themselves    into cooperative societies and those societies have entered  into labour contracts with                                                        470 the   Refinery.   Other   labourers   are   working    under labour    contractors who have contracts with the  Refinery. Theirs   is   not   a   constant   relationship  with    one contractor  and  these  labourers  keep  shifting  from  one contractor to another. However  it  is  claimed  that  these casual   labourers,  have  been  working  in  the   Refinery for  so  many  years  in  the past ranging between  ten   to fifteen   years   but  they  are  denied   wages  and  other benefits  as  also  other  beneficial   service   conditions enjoyed  by workmen  who  are  regular  employees   of   the Refinery.  Claiming  that they had a right to be treated  at par   with   regular   employees,   the   Union  filed  Writ Petition  No.  2876  of  1985  under  Article  32   of   the Constitution  of India in this Court  which   was   disposed of   on   January   16,  1986   by  directing   the  Central Government   to   refer  to  the  Industrial   Tribunal  for adjudication the following questions:          1.  Whether,  in  law,  the  petitioners  and  the          48    workmen   whose   services     have     been          terminated    are    employees    of  the    Indian          Oil   Corporation,   Mathura   Refinery    Project,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

        Mathura?           2.   Whether  the  termination  of  the   services           of  48  workmen was justified? and           3. To what  relief  are  the  workmen  entitled?" Status  quo   was   ordered  to  be   maintained   and   the services    of   the   workmen  were  ordered  not  to    be terminated.   At  that  time,  the  services  of 48  workmen alone   were    involved    but   as    is    evident    the adjudication   of  the Tribunal would have  affected  others too.      Pursuant  to  the order of this Court,  the     Central Government   referred   and   the    Industrial     Tribunal decided    the   above   referred questions   holding   that the   workmen  were  not  employees  of  the   Refinery  and were  rather  the  employees  of   the   contractors.   With regard   to the termination of the services of the   workmen and   to   what  relief  they were entitled,  the  Tribunal, after  answering  the  questions  against  the Union and  in favour of  the  Refinery,  suggested  the  following   steps in the interest of Industrial harmony:      (i)    Though the Union  should  have   pressed   their      demand  for abolition of the contract labour system  in      the    Refinery   to   the  Central   Advisory    Board      constituted  under  the  Act,  and  even though it  had      been pursuing its remedies before  this  Court  and the      Tribunal,  suggestions  were made to  the  Refinery  to      approach                                                        471      the Advisory Board to make  a  study  with  regard   to      the   desirability  of  continuance of   the   contract      labour  system  in  the  Refinery.      (ii)   Till  the  Central  Advisory  Board  makes   its      recommendations  and   the   action   is   taken,   the      management   of   the   Refinery   to ensure  that  the      contract labour is paid at least the  minimum  of   the      pay  scale  of its regular employees   performing   the      same  or  similar duties as the workmen of the contract      labour   and   further  that  the  workmen  among   the      contract  labour  who  have  put  in  5  years  or more      of   work   at   the   Mathura   Refinery   shall    be      continued  to  be employed   in   the   same work  even      if  there  is  a  change  in  the contractor  and  such      workmen   shall   not   be  terminated   except   as  a      punishment    inflicted   by   way   of    disciplinary      action  for  misconduct, etc., voluntary retirement  or      retirement on reaching the age of superannuation (which      may  be taken as the superannuation age for the  I.O.C.      employees) or on ground of continuous ill-health.      (iii)     Refinery to give preference to those  workmen      in its employment by waiving the requirement of age and      other qualifications wherever possible and it may  also      consider  the  creation of a benevolent  fund  for  the      contract   labour  wherein  it  may  make   a   lumpsum      contribution initially and then make equivalent or even      more contribution to match the contribution made by the      workmen of the contract labour.      Having suggested these, the Tribunal has clarified that these  ameliorative steps, if taken by the  Refinery,  shall not be taken to mean that the contract labour has become the direct employees of the Refinery.      Learned counsel for the  appellant  says  that   though the  above suggestions, which have the colour of directions, are  in  accord with  the decision of this  Court  in  13HEL workers  Association,  Hardwar and Others etc. v.  Union  of India  and Others, [ 1985] 1 SCC 630 yet they fall short  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the expectancies of the Union and in particular to the  wide sweep  of the principles laid down by this Court in  Dharwad Distt P.W.D.  Literate Daily Wage Employees Association  and Others  v. State of Karnataka and Others, [ 1990] 2 SCC  396 and  prayed for directions such as those given to the  State of Karnataka in the Dharwad’s case (supra).      The argument of the  learned  counsel  has  barely   to be  noted  and                                                        472 rejected.  The Tribunal has given to the appellant-Union the maximum which could be given in the facts and  circumstances of  the,  case.   In Dharwad’s case (supra),  the  State  of Karnataka  had itself come out with a scheme to  absorb  the casual  workers  in regular government service in  a  phased manner  and though it did not satisfy all concerned, yet  it was  given a workable final shape.  This Court  observed  as follows:           "Though the, scheme so finalised is not the  ideal           one  but  it  is the obligation of  the  court  to           individualise justice to suit a given situation in           a  set of facts that are placed before  it.  Under           the  scheme of the Constitution the purse  remains           in the hands of the executive.  The legislature of           the State controls the Consolidated Fund   out  of           which  the expenditure to be incurred,  in  giving           effect  to the scheme, will have to be  met.   The           flow  into the Consolidated Fund depends upon  the           policy  of  taxation  depending  perhaps  on   the           capacity   of   the  payer.    Therefore,   unduly           burdening   the   State   for   implementing   the           constitutional obligation forth with would  create           problems  which  the  State may  not  be  able  to           handle.  Therefore, the directions have been  made           with judicious restraint." Those casual workers were under the employment of the  State and  the State came out with a scheme for phased  absorption and a graded financial responsibility.  In the instant  case before us, the contract labourers are not, and have also not been  found  to  be, having a  direct  connection  with  the Refinery,  even  though  it is a State for  the  purpose  of enforcement of fundamental rights.The suggestions/directions given  by the Tribunal, appear to us to be the  only  relief which was due to the appellant and its members in the  given situation and circumstances.  Therefore, the impugned  Award of the Tribunal cannot be improved upon.      Finding  no merit in the appeal, we dismiss  the  same. No costs. T.N.A.                                     Appeal dismissed.                                                        473