Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The C.R. Manager Hindustan Petroleum ... vs The Labour Courtcumindust.Tribunal on 13 November, 2025

APHC010232852002                                                     Bench Sr.No:-10
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                                                         [3506]
                                AT AMARAVATI

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 20016 of 2002



    The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum              ...Petitioner
    Corporation Ltd.

          Vs.

    The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and Others ...Respondent(s)


                                      **********

    Advocate for Petitioner:               Smt.V. UMA DEVI

    Advocate for Respondent:               GP FOR LABOUR


                CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

                DATE      : 13th November 2025

    ORDER:

The present writ petition challenges the legality or otherwise of Award, dated 26.09.2001, passed in I.D.No.43 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, and consequently, to quash the same.

2. Petitioner is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ("Corporation"), which is undertaking of Government of India. The 2nd respondent claiming to be working as Sweeper with the petitioner Corporation, which was eventually prohibited under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short, "the 2 CGR, J.

CLRA Act"), instituted I.D.No.43 of 1995 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, "the I.D. Act"), questioning his termination from service. He stated to have been terminated from service on 02.01.1995. The 2nd respondent laid the claim that he was initially engaged by the contractor, who was in turn, engaged by the petitioner Corporation for the purpose of scavenging as Sweeper and that he has been discharging duties accordingly. After putting in considerable period of service, he was abruptly removed from service, and that too by oral intimation, and therefore, he preferred the I.D. seeking for reinstatement into service with all benefits.

3. The claim came to be contested by the petitioner Corporation by filing counter-affidavit, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner Corporation being an entity of Central Government was only susceptible to the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, but not, Labour Court, that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act would not apply to the Central Government Undertakings and further, there was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the Corporation, as admittedly, he was engaged by the contractor and there cannot be an automatic relationship between them.

4. The Labour Court, after considering the respective pleas and also the evidence that was adduced, both oral and documentary, ultimately 3 CGR, J.

allowed the claim by directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with all benefits i.e., full back wages. Challenging the aforesaid Award, dated 26.09.2001, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Despite service of notice, none appears for 2nd respondent - workman. The writ petition has been dismissed for default insofar as the 3rd respondent is concerned.

6. Heard Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation and none appeared for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation mainly contended that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent workman claimed to be employed with the petitioner Corporation, that the Corporation being an entity/undertaking of Central Government, the notification, in particular, G.O.Ms.No.287, dated 07.05.1981, issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, purportedly exercising powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour, in particular, the sweeping activity would not be applicable and even otherwise similar notification, dated 09.12.1976, issued by Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, since has been held to be invalid by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers1, 1 (2001) 7 SCC 1 4 CGR, J.

the Award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. She further contended that mere issuance of an omnibus notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, even by State Government, would not ipso facto prohibit the notified activity qua Corporation, unless the requirements of Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act are specifically examined and considered for the purpose of issuance of the notification, the same cannot be applied to concerned Corporation in default. It is also contended that the Labour Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union2, which considered the effect of notification issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, however, since the view expressed in the said judgment has later been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SAIL's case1, the award has to go. Learned counsel made reference to the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in The Chief Regional Manager, HPCL v. Labour Court, Guntur3, which followed the judgment in SAIL's case1.

8. On perusal of the record and also award passed by the Labour Court, it emerges that the 2nd respondent workman was engaged with the contractor as Sweeper for undertaking the cleaning activities at the petitioner Corporation. There is a specific finding recorded by the 2 (1997) 9 SCC 377 3 Order, dated 17.02.2003, passed in WP No.18027 of 2002. (AP HC) 5 CGR, J.

Labour Court to the extent that he was engaged by the contractor as Sweeper. The State Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.287, dated 07.05.1981, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting the activity of scavenging/sweeping. So also, even Central Government issued notification, dated 09.12.1976, to the same extent. The entire controversy now rests with as to whether the notification of State Government would apply to the petitioner Corporation, being a Central Government Undertaking, and nextly, whether the notification of Central Government would have any impact on the petitioner Corporation.

9. Interpreting the expression 'Appropriate Government' falling in Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SAIL's case1 has candidly held that it would be the Central Government in case of Central Government Company/Undertaking for the purpose of Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. In view of the said interpretation, the notification issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.287, dated 07.05.1981, clearly would not apply to the petitioner Corporation.

10. Insofar as notification, dated 09.12.1976 is concerned, in the very same judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the said notification to be not in consonance with the requirement of Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act, in particular. Resultantly, as the activity which is now sought to be claimed to be prohibited activity, is neither attracted 6 CGR, J.

by any of the notifications as such issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act qua the Central Government, nor the notification in force as issued by the State Government would not apply to the petitioner Corporation, the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court, by placing reliance on these notifications, is clearly, therefore, unsustainable. In view of the same, it is not required to go into the aspect whether there exists employer and employee relationship between 2 nd respondent workman and the petitioner Corporation.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed quashing the impugned award, dated 26.09.2001, passed in I.D.No.43 of 1995. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:13.11.2025.

cs