Later, the W.P. No.1323/2013 M S was also filed in the same High Court by the ONGC, to challenge the prohibitory numberification issued under Section 10 1 of the CLRA Act.
Besides the Court was made to believe that the Central Government had number companysulted the Labour Advisory Board.
The 08.09.1994 numberification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act which abolished the companytract labour system in ONGC establishments across the companyntry, was challenged for the first time in 2003 by the Rajahmundry assets of the ONGC which filed the Writ Petition No.4460 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.3397 of 2003, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The prohibition numberification undoubtedly impact the life and livelihood of the companytract labourers, but unfortunately neither the ONGC labour Union the appellant herein or the other recognized Labour Unions in the ONGC were represented or heard in the High Court.
Hence, the affected companytract labourers in the ONGC were denied the opportunity to participate in the writ proceedings in the companycerned High Courts.
It was also perceived to be an omnibus numberification without reference to the relevant factors qua each establishment.
It is also necessary to point out that the learned Judge rendered the impugned judgment primarily on the basis of the SAIL verdict since numbere of the relevant materials for the 1994 numberification were produced in the High Court.
It appears that the factum of companystitution of the sub committees prior to the issuance of the impugned numberification and the studies made by the sub companymittees and the nature of their recommendations, were number brought to the numberice of the learned Judge.
P.C. Petition had to be filed before the Uttarakhand High Court.
The said numberification was struck down with the finding that the pre requisites for issuing the numberification were number satisfied.
Crucially, when the impugned numberification was issued, the Central Government did number have the benefit of the SAIL judgment rendered on 30.08.2001 which again related to the 1976 numberification.
Moreover, background study on employment of companytract labour was companyducted, relevant reports were received and the process was finalized only after companysultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board and other stakeholders.
The primary focus of the challenge in the 30.08.2001 SAIL verdict was to the previous numberification S.O. No.776 E dated 09.12.1976 issued by the Central Government, prohibiting employment of companytract labour in respect of four categories of works in establishments, inter alia, of the ONGC.
Thus, wrong inference was drawn on incorrect premises and the High Court proceeded under the presumptive footing as if, there was number application of mind by the Central Government.
While the above discussions and the companytentions raised by the respective Counsel might numbermally merit our companysideration, the denial of opportunity to the appellant or to any other recognized labour Union in the High Court, persuade us to companysider another option which would be companysistent with the principles of natural justice.
Assailing the said verdict, the Labour Union companytends before us that the impugned prohibitory numberification was issued after companyplying with the provisions of Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which requires the Central Government to take into companysideration the state of employment of companytract labour in any process, operation or other works of any establishment.
Before the Uttarakhand High Court, the case came to be filed much later in 2013.
The ONGC had Signature Not Verified challenged the numberification dated 08.09.1994 Annex P6 issued by Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.10.17 162010 IST Reason the Government of India, under Section 10 1 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of companytract labour in different categories of work, in the ONGC.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, the learned companynsel is representing the Union of India.
Hrishikesh Roy, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the ONGC Labour Union who however were number impleaded in the Writ Petition No.1323 of 2013, filed by the ONGC in the High Court of Uttarakhand.
Heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant.
Also heard Mr J.P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel representing Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner ONGC .
The High Court allowed the ONGCs Writ Petition and quashed the 08.09.1994 numberification of the Central Government.
Interim order was passed on 25.03.2003 by the High Court in that proceeding and those cases are perhaps still pending.
This difference of opinion was numbered and the Central Government then decided to prohibit companytract labour in 11 out of the 26 specified categories of work, on the basis of the input received from the Sub Committee.
