Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P Nos. 7534 to 7537 of 2006

Attorney(S)

K.P Pathak, Additional Solicitor General of India with Sourav Agraval and Govindram Talreja instructed by M/s Govindram Talreja and Associates (in W.P Nos. 7534 and 7536 of 2006) J.P Cama, Senior Advocate with Govindram Talreja instructed by M/s Govindram Talreja and Associates (in W.P Nos. 7535 and 7537 of 2006)
Anand Grover with Ms Firdous Moosa instructed by Prakash Mahadik (in W.P Nos. 7534 to 7537 of 2006)
Abhay Kulkarni with T R. Yadav (in W.P Nos. 7534 of 2006 to 7536 of 2006)

Judges

R.M.S Khandeparkar, J.

Acts

section 11(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
SECTION 10 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitions challenge an impugned order dated 17 August 2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, which directed the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the references. The disputes between the parties arose in 1991 and references were made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by a Government order dated 15 April 2004. The references concern whether the contract between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and a contractor is a sham and whether the workmen employed through the contractor should be declared permanent employees of ONGC and be paid wages and other consequential benefits.

Since 1991 the workmen have continued to be employed by ONGC under various protective orders passed by courts, including the Supreme Court and this Court. The Apex Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition by order dated 28 February 2005 and directed the Industrial Tribunal to hear and dispose of the application for interim relief. The record also shows that MOUs were signed between the parties (without a contractor) in 1990 and similar MOUs were executed in 1992, 1995 and 2000. ONGC gave ex gratia payments of Rs. 10,000 to workmen at Diwali 2005 and some workmen were given VRS packages directly by ONGC.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Industrial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief because there was no employer-employee relationship between ONGC and the concerned workmen.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was unduly influenced by directions or observations contained in earlier orders of this Court when granting interim relief.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in the references (i.e., power to pass orders under section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).
In the references themselves: (i) whether the contract between ONGC and the contractor is a sham/camouflage to deprive workmen of benefits; (ii) whether the workmen should be declared permanent employees of ONGC; and (iii) what wages and consequential benefits should be paid.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Industrial Tribunal failed to consider that there was no employer-employee relationship between ONGC and the workmen, and hence the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs requested.
The Industrial Tribunal was influenced by directions and observations issued earlier by this Court in respect of the parties, and relied upon those observations improperly when granting interim relief.
The Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief; reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision in MRF Ltd., Goa v. Goa MRF Employees' Union (2004 (1) LLJ 394) which, it was submitted, held that a reference court has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 11(4) (and the matter was said to be pending before a larger Bench of the Apex Court on a related point).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's (workmen/union or Tribunal's) adversarial submissions in the form of discrete, enumerated arguments equivalent to the petitioner's contentions; instead the Tribunal's factual findings and procedural history are described and the Court analysed those findings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
MRF Ltd., Goa v. Goa MRF Employees' Union, Goa, 2004 (1) LLJ 394	Submitted by petitioner as authority that a reference court has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief (alleged holding relating to section 11(4)). Also noted that the matter was taken to the Apex Court for consideration of whether "matters incidental thereto" under section 10(4) permit interim relief.	The Court observed that the MRF decision dealt with a complaint under section 33A and that, in any event, the Division Bench decision did not assist the petitioner in the present factual and legal context.
The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342	Held that interim relief, where admissible, can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal (under section 10(4)); distinguished interim award and interim relief.	The Court relied on this Apex Court precedent to support the proposition that tribunals/courts can grant interim relief incidental to matters referred under section 10; the opinion quotes and applies the distinction between interim award and interim relief.
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, (1999) 6 SCC 275 : AIR 1999 SC 2423	Held that the competent court can stay an impugned retrenchment order by way of interim relief and direct maintenance of status quo; the court has ample jurisdiction to pass interim orders in appropriate cases under section 10.	The Court treated this Apex Court authority as supporting the Tribunal's power to stay action and direct maintenance of status quo; it formed part of the controlling law on jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court addressed each ground raised by the petitioner in turn and explained why interference with the impugned order was not justified on the record before it.

1. On the challenge that the Tribunal ignored absence of employer-employee relationship: the Court noted the long history of the dispute since 1991, the workmen's continued employment under protective orders, the MOUs of 1990, 1992, 1995 and 2000, ONGC's ex gratia payments in Diwali 2005 and direct VRS offers to many workmen. Taking these factors together, the Industrial Tribunal found a prima facie case for interim relief. Although the Court observed that the Tribunal's statement in paragraph 9 that workers had "all right of employment irrespective of the fact as to who employs them" was unwarranted, that isolated observation did not justify striking down the entire interim order because other corroborative acts and conduct by ONGC prima facie disclosed employer-like conduct toward the workmen. The Court also noted that the question of employer-employee relationship must be considered by the Tribunal on merits; for the purpose of interim relief a prima facie case existed.

2. On the contention that the Tribunal was improperly influenced by this Court's earlier directions: the Court accepted that the impugned order referred to this Court's prior orders, but held that the Tribunal had considered various factors and corroborative evidence before arriving at its prima facie finding. The mere reference to prior orders did not show that those orders were the sole basis for granting interim relief.

3. On the jurisdictional challenge to the Tribunal's power to grant interim relief: the Court examined the authorities relied upon. It observed that the Division Bench decision in MRF Ltd.'s case concerned a complaint under section 33A and did not control the present situation. The Court relied upon binding Apex Court authorities—The Management, Hotel Imperial and Lokmat Newspapers—which recognize that interim relief can be granted as incidental to matters referred under section 10 and that a competent court can, in appropriate cases, stay an impugned retrenchment order and direct maintenance of status quo. Given these precedents and the Apex Court's specific direction (28 February 2005) to the Tribunal to hear the interim application, the Court concluded that the Tribunal properly exercised its power to grant interim relief.

The Court also noted as an additional factual point that the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service in the previous year within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, which supported the Tribunal's exercise of relief.

Finally, while observing that the dispute has been pending since 1991 and that merits must be decided, the Court urged expeditious final disposal of the references and suggested that the Tribunal endeavour to decide the matters by 31 December 2007.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: Petitions rejected; Petition dismissed.

Direct consequences:

The impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 17 August 2006 directing maintenance of status quo until disposal of the references is upheld; no fault was found with the grant of interim relief.
The Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant interim relief in this matter was affirmed by reference to binding Apex Court authorities (The Management, Hotel Imperial and Lokmat Newspapers). The Division Bench decision in MRF Ltd.'s case was held not to assist the petitioner in the present context.
The Tribunal is directed (in the interest of both parties) to endeavour to dispose of the matters finally on merits as early as possible and, by all probabilities, by 31 December 2007.

Broader implications:

The opinion applies and follows existing Supreme Court authority recognizing the power of a tribunal/court to grant interim relief as incidental to references under section 10; it does not purport to lay down a new legal principle beyond those precedents.

This summary is confined to information explicitly contained in the provided opinion and does not infer facts or arguments not stated therein.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others

1. Since common question of law and facts arise in the above petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The above petitions arise from the impugned order dated 17th August, 2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the parties are directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the references.

3. The impugned order is sought to be challenged mainly on three grounds, namely, that the Industrial Tribunal failed to consider that there is no employer employee relationship between the parties, and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant reliefs asked for. Secondly, that the Industrial Tribunal, was very much influenced by the directions which were issued earlier by this Court in respect of the parties to the proceeding. And thirdly, that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief.

4. The impugned order has been passed in the references pending before the Industrial Tribunal on three points, namely, (i) whether the contract between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and the existing contractor is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the concerned employees represented by the concerned labour union of benefits available to the permanent workmen of ONGC? and (ii) whether the workmen represented by the said union employed through the contractor by ONGC should be declared as permanent workmen of ONGC? and (iii) what should be the wages and other consequential benefits to be paid to the concerned employees?

5. The said references have been made pursuant to the long drawn dispute between the parties commencing from 1991. Since 1991, undisputedly, the workmen continued to be employed by ONGC, albeit, duly protected by various orders passed by the Courts including the Apex Court and this Court. Equally it is true that the Apex Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition by its order dated 28th February, 2005, had directed the Industrial Tribunal to hear and dispose of the application for interim relief. The Industrial Tribunal was not expected to be in any manner influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 13th July, 2004 while deciding the application for interim relief.

6. As regards the first ground of challenge is concerned, undisputedly, a controversy between the parties relates to the capacity in which the workmen are working and their dates of joining the employment with the ONGC, and thus, the controversy between the parties is pending since 1991 and references in that regard have been made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by an order of the Government dated 15th April, 2004. During all these times, the workmen have been enjoying the protection under the orders passed by this Court or by the Apex Court or the Industrial Tribunal. Besides, it is also not in dispute that there were Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) signed between the parties without intervention of a contractor and without contractor being made by the party to such MOUs in the year 1990 and similar MOUs were executed in the years 1992, 1995 and 2000. It is also a matter of record that the ONGC had offered and given Rs. 10,000/- ex gratia payment to the workmen during Diwali, 2005 and many of the workmen were also given VRS package directly by ONGC without intervention of the contractor. The Industrial Tribunal, after taking into consideration all these factors, has obviously found prima facie case being made out for grant of interim relief.

7. It is true that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal has made an observation to the effect that “it is admitted position that the workers under reference are in employment for the last about 20 years. Hence, they have all right of employment irrespective of the fact as to who employs them.” Repeatedly, referring to the said observation, it was sought to be argued that the Industrial Tribunal erred in granting interim relief ignoring the fact that in the absence of employer-employee relationship between the ONGC and the concerned workmen, there could not have been any direction for maintenance of status quo in relation to their employment with the ONGC. It is to be noted that the Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration, as already observed above, various factors before arriving at the finding about a prima facie case being made out for grant of interim relief and not merely by observing that the workmen are entitled for protection irrespective of the fact as to who had employed them. Undoubtedly, the said finding was unwarranted. However, merely because the said finding being unwarranted, that by itself will not be a justification for interference in the impugned order for more than one reason referred to above. The workmen are in the employment for numerous years. The acts on the part of the petitioner prima facie disclose relationship of employer-employee between the parties and the acts on the part of the petitioner which would reveal conduct of an employer towards the workmen concerned. At the same time, though it cannot be disputed that the Industrial Tribunal will have to deal with the issue which has been raised by the petitioner about absence of employer-employee relationship between the parties while dealing with the matter on merits, as far as interim relief is concerned, there being a prima facie case made out, no fault can be found with the impugned order for rejecting the contention on the part of the petitioner about the alleged absence of relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

8. As regards the second ground of challenge, i.e the Industrial Tribunal was very much influenced by the directions which were issued earlier by this Court in respect of the parties to the proceeding, it is true that the impugned order refers to an order of this Court which was passed by dismissing the review petition, that by itself cannot be said that the entire order has been passed solely on the basis of observations by this Court in its earlier orders. Before arriving at the finding about prima facie case being made out, the Industrial Tribunal, as already observed above, after taking into consideration the various factors including corroborative factors, has made a reference to the orders passed by this Court. But it cannot be said that the orders passed by this Court have been the basis for the Industrial Court to grant of interim relief.

9. As regards third ground of challenge is concerned, i.e the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief, it has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Division Bench of this Court in MRF Ltd., Goa v. Goa MRF Employees' Union, Goa, reported in 2004 (1) LLJ 394, has held that the reference Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief under section 11(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been further submitted that the matter therein has been carried to the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court has referred the issue as to whether any interim relief could be granted in view of the use of the expression “matters incidental thereto” under section 10(4) to a larger Bench, and therefore, considering the decision of the Division Bench in MRF Ltd.'s case (supra), which has not been stayed, it is to be held that the decision is binding and the Industrial Tribunal could not have granted any interim relief.

10. At the outset, it is to be noted that the decision of the Division Bench in MRF Ltd.'s case (supra) was in relation to a complaint under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Besides, the Apex Court in The Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1342 had held that “thus interim relief where it is admissible can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal without being itself referred in express terms”, and while delivering the said ruling, the Apex Court had taken note of the difference between interim award and interim relief and held thus:—

“It is also open to the tribunal to make an award about some of the matters referred to it whilst some others still remain to be decided. This will be an interim determination of any question relating thereto. In either case it will have to be published as required by section 17. Such awards are however not in the nature of interim relief for they decide the industrial dispute or some question relating thereto. Interim relief, on the other hand, is granted under the power conferred on the tribunal under section 10(4) with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Similarly, in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 275 : AIR 1999 SC 2423, the Apex Court after taking note of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act had held that the competent Court had power to stay an impugned retrenchment order by way of interim relief and to direct the maintenance of status quo, and it was ruled that:—

“It is also necessary to note that in such references received by the competent Court under the I.D Act in appropriate cases, the Court to which such references are made has ample jurisdiction to pass interim orders and if the Court had found that the impugned retrenchment order was required to be stayed even though it had been passed after conciliation proceedings were over and when there was no prohibitory order from any authority such retrenchment order could have been stayed. Further implementation of the impugned change could have been stayed.”

12. The law on the point of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to grant interim relief, as it stands today, therefore, is the one which has been laid down in The Management Hotel Imperial and Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.'s cases (supra). The decision of Division Bench in MRF Ltd.'s case (supra) in no way helps the petitioner. Being so, as the law stands today, the decision of the Apex Court being binding, no fault can be found with the power exercised by the Industrial Tribunal for grant of interim relief. It is also to be noted that such a power has been exercised by the Industrial Tribunal consequent to the specific directions issued by the Apex Court in its order dated 28th February, 2005 to hear and decide the application for interim relief.

13. Added to the above factors, it is also revealed from the record that the workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service in the previous year within the meaning of the said expression under the Industrial Disputes Act.

14. Taking into consideration all the above factors, which prima facie make out a case for grant of interim relief, as rightly observed by the Industrial Tribunal, no fault can be found with the impugned order granting interim relief. The petitioner, however, is justified in contending that since the controversy is pending from 1991, it is necessary in the interest of both the parties to dispose of the matters on merits as expeditiously as possible and the Industrial Tribunal should endeavour to dispose of the matters finally on merits as early as possible and by all probabilities by 31st December, 2007.

15. With the above observations, the petitions are rejected.

Petition dismissed.

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Transport And Dock Workers Union And Others

Comments