Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 4 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), represented by its Regional Director, Southern Regional Business Centre, Chennai.
- Respondents: 1) Government of India, Ministry of Labour (represented by Under Secretary); 2) Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour; 3) ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union (Secretary); 4) Transport and Dock Workers Union (Secretary); 5) Pandian Transport (Proprietor Mr. Pandian).
- Petition Numbers: Writ Petition No. 739 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos. 813 and 815 of 2022 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Core Dispute: ONGC sought a writ of certiorari to obtain records and to quash the order dated 17 May 2017 (Reference No. L‑30011/37/1999‑IR (M)) issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, which questioned the regularisation of 55 contract workmen listed in Annexure‑A as being employed by ONGC.
- Background: The workers were engaged through contractors. The fourth respondent Union raised an industrial dispute on wage revision, which was declined on 19 September 1995 on the ground that the workers were not directly employed by ONGC. The third respondent Union raised a dispute on 21 August 1997 before the Regional Labour Commissioner; conciliation failed. A reference was made to the Labour Court on 17 November 1999, which was questioned in W.P. No. 21407 of 2000. The Madras High Court, on 19 April 2002, observed that the objections of the petitioner were not considered and that the power exercised by the first respondent was unreasonable.
- The 2017 reference (registered as Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 2017) sought to determine the legality of regularising the 55 contract workers and the relief they were entitled to. The reference remains pending adjudication before the Labour Court.
- Grounds raised by ONGC: (i) No employer‑employee relationship exists; (ii) Workers are covered by the Contract Labour Act, 1948, precluding a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act; (iii) The 1999 reference was quashed in 2000, making the 2017 reference baseless; (iv) The dispute is vexatious after a 12‑year gap; (v) No new facts have been presented.
- The court noted that the Labour Court has already taken cognizance, recorded evidence from both parties, and reserved its order (reserved on 28 July 2026).
Final Outcome
- The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it cannot interfere with the pending Labour Court proceedings.
- No costs were awarded.
- The dismissal does not affect the findings of the Labour Court, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Topics: Industrial Dispute, Labour Law