| CITATION | (1997) IILLJ 1101 Mad |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 6th August, 1997 |
| COURT | Madras High Court |
| APPELLANT | K. Ramakrishnan & ors. |
| RESPONDENT | Bharat Petroleum Corporation |
| BENCH | A.R Lakshmanan, P Thangavel J. |
INTRODUCTION
K. Ramakrishnan and Ors. v/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 1997″ is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves K. Ramakrishnan and other parties as appellants, and Bharat Petroleum Corporation as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or matters involving Bharat Petroleum Corporation and individuals represented by K. Ramakrishnan and others. The year 1997 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Management had made an agreement with a third-party company named ‘Leo Oils Private Ltd.’ located at No. 112, Cross Road in Tondiarpet. This third-party company has expertise in blending lubricants on behalf of the Management’s company. They receive base oil from the Indian Oil Lube Blending Plant in Korukupet, Madras. The first respondent has also entered into an agreement with this third party, which states that the third-party company should fill the blended lubricants into large barrels.
For the purpose of supplying empty barrels to this third-party company, the Management has signed an agreement with a contractor to transport the empty barrels from Tondiarpet Installation of Bharat Petroleum Corporation to the premises of M/s. Leo Oils Private Limited. After the barrels are filled, they are brought back to the Tondiarpet Installation.
The Lubricants section at Tondiarpet has the capability to fill lubricants into small containers of different capacities such as half a liter, one liter, and five liters. Permanent employees of the Corporation handle this operation.
The Management has also made an agreement with a third party to manufacture barrels and tins and supply them to the Tondiarpet Installation. This agreement includes the loading and unloading of the manufactured tins and barrels, which is the responsibility of the supplier. The supply of barrels and tins fluctuates based on the actual needs of the Tondiarpet Installation and is therefore intermittent.
Once the lubricants are filled in containers, they are distributed to the first respondent’s various depots and installations in the Southern region, covering the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. The first respondent has entered into agreements with various third parties for the transportation of these lubricants.
Not all 23 workers would obtain work every day because of the fluctuating nature of the tasks. Around the time when the writ petition was filed, the first respondent-Management terminated its contract with Mr. K. Palani and entered into a new contract with Shiram Transports for various jobs, including transportation and handling of barrels from Leo Oil Pvt. Ltd., as well as stacking, destacking, shifting, and mounting of barrels.
The petitioner union and the management of the four leading employees of the Installation, as and when vacancies arose. They also claimed that the contractor had not maintained necessary records such as muster rolls and wage registers for these 23 workers. It appears that the workers also filed a lawsuit in the Madras City Civil Court (O.S. No. 972 of 1987) seeking a declaration that these workers are regular employees of the first respondent Corp. They argued that the contractor did not have a license for employing contract laborers until October 30, 1986, and that the work performed by these workers was of a continuous nature and essential to the main functions of the first respondent’s establishment. This lawsuit is still pending in the court.
Since there was no response from the Management, the writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 6220 of 1987, seeking a mandamus to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to absorb the 23 workers currently engaged through the third respondent contractor, K. Palani, in the loading, unloading, and other operations at the Installations of the first respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in Tondiarpet, as direct employees.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the writ petition filed was valid?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
- The appellants, argued that in the Gujarat Electricity Board case, the Supreme Court criticized the practice of Public Sector undertakings hiring contract labor and recommended that these organizations should cease this practice and directly employ the labor.
- He emphasized that the affected workers had already endured a nine-year-long wait for the writ petition’s final resolution. Requiring them to pursue relief through labor courts at this juncture would further burden them with hardship.
- Therefore, he contended that the earlier ruling by the learned single Judge should be overturned.
- Instead, he urged for an order instructing Respondents 1 and 2 to hire the workers involved in loading and unloading operations at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in Tondiarpet as direct employees through a contractor.
- Appellant pointed out that the decision cited from Gujarat Electricity Board’s case involved a Bench of two Honourable Judges and encompassed a group of four Civil Appeals that presented similar legal inquiries regarding the elimination of the contract labour system. He highlighted that, in addition to providing a general solution, the Bench also issued specific instructions in each case based on the unique facts and context of that particular case, as evident from the judgment.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- The first respondent Corporation states that it has no control or supervision over any of the workers engaged by these third parties, and the Management lacks knowledge about their identities or any other details regarding their employment.
- There are also occasional miscellaneous tasks at the Tondiarpet Installation, such as stacking, de stacking, shifting, and loading of barrels or lubricants into dealers’ or customers’ vehicles. These tasks are assigned to a contractor called “Shiram Transports.”
- Respondent referred the Air India case in which the court held the contractor acts as a go-between for the workers and the main employer. When the use of contract labor is prohibited as per Section 10(1), the restriction on engaging as contract labor ceases to exist. Consequently, a direct connection is established between the workers and the main employer. This means that the main employer is now directly responsible for hiring the services of the workers, a responsibility that was previously managed through the contractor.
JUDGEMENT
Court held that there is no disagreement that the writ Court possesses unrestricted powers. When determining whether a contract is genuine or not in a particular case, which is a matter of fact, both parties may need to present evidence in an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. Examining the case’s details, including the prayer in the writ petition and arguments presented by both parties, as well as reviewing the statements made by each party, it is evident that the individuals in question were unquestionably employed by the contractor Palani. Unfortunately, Palani passed away a few weeks before the judgment was delivered in the writ petition.
During the existence of the contract, the employment of contract labour depended on the day-to-day needs of loading and unloading. Some days all the contract labour would be engaged, other days only a few, and on certain days none at all. Orders were issued during the pendency of the writ petition, stating that the contract labour should be provided work by specific contractors, as specified in the court order, based on the current requirements. Eventually, all the contractors, except Palani, chose not to renew their contracts. During the interim orders of this Court, the contract labour of Palani was engaged based on the prevailing needs. However, with the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order was lifted. As mentioned by the respondent’s legal counsel, new contractors are now involved, hiring their own workers for loading and unloading operations.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the case underscores the shift from the contract labor system to a direct employment relationship with the principal employer, as mandated by Section 10(1). It also emphasizes the discretionary powers of the writ Court in evaluating employment arrangements and recognizing the evolving nature of employment dynamics within the industrial landscape.
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Yashasvi Sharma student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
