Uttarakhand high court has struck down the Centre’s Sept 1994 notification banning the appointment of contract workers in ONGC, ruling that it was issued without following Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The verdict effectively lifts the three-decade-old ban on hiring contract workers in ONGC.
Legal watchers said that the judgment sets a key precedent for ONGC and other public sector undertakings where disputes over the hiring of contract workers have persisted for years.
The case dates back to 2013, when the labour enforcement officer (central) filed a complaint against ONGC in the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) court, alleging that the company continued to employ contract workers despite the ban. ONGC then challenged the Centre’s notification in the high court, arguing that the govt had failed to consult the central advisory contract labour board as required under Section 10(2) of the Act before imposing restrictions on 13 categories of work within the company. It said the notification was based solely on a sub-committee report that inspected only four of ONGC’s 34 units nationwide, and that the report was never approved by the advisory board.
The central govt countered that the notification was issued after due consultation and since over 30 years had passed, could no longer be challenged. Other respondents claimed the petition was delayed and that ONGC had deliberately excluded labour unions from the proceedings. They maintained that the notification was backed by proper consultation and investigation, and the central govt had full authority to issue it.
After detailed hearings, a single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit ruled on Thursday that the central govt must consult the advisory board before restricting employment on a contract basis. “The inspection of only four establishments by the sub-committee demonstrated that the govt did not consider adequate facts,” it said, adding that records showed no consultation with the central advisory board and that the notification was issued solely on the sub-committee’s findings.
Citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the provisions of Section 10(2) are mandatory and any violation renders a notification void, the high court declared the 1994 order “illegal”.
