Summary
ONGC challenged wage-revision relief for workers engaged through contractors, relying on the absence of direct employment and a settlement with other unions and contractors. The Court upheld rejection of those objections. Employment status involved facts not properly contested before the Tribunal, and the other settlement addressed a different employer relationship and was not binding on this dispute. The High Court’s remand to calculate wages, with interim wage protection, remained operative.
Issues
- Whether ONGC could defeat the reference on a contractor-employment objection not pressed before the Tribunal.
- Whether the settlement with contractors and majority unions bound workers asserting direct employment with ONGC.
- Whether the wage-revision relief as modified by the High Court warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 18(3)(d), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The general extended operation of conciliation settlements did not make this contractor-worker settlement binding on the distinct dispute asserting ONGC as the actual employer. (¶ 16-24)
Held
- A Tribunal must remain within the reference, and genuine inherent jurisdictional defects can be corrected by a superior court. Here, however, the objection depended on disputed employment facts. ONGC had not pressed that issue at the hearing, denying the unions the occasion to lead relevant evidence; the High Court’s approach rejecting the belated objection was upheld. (¶ 13-15)
- Engagement through contractors alone did not settle the identity of the actual employer. The unions alleged sham contracts, and their claim of direct employment was implicit in a reference arising from demands made against ONGC. Prior direct memoranda were relevant circumstances, although not independently conclusive of employment status. (¶¶ 12, 15, 23)
- Conciliation settlements ordinarily have extended binding effect, but the settlement relied on here essentially treated contractors as employers and ONGC as a consenting principal employer. The present dispute asserted a different relationship with ONGC. Majority support did not itself resolve that distinct dispute. (¶ 16-23)
- The finding that the settlement was not just and fair for the affected workers, including its requirement to withdraw pending claims, was supported by evidence and was not perverse. The limited scope for interference did not justify replacing that assessment. (¶ 19-24)
- The relief as modified by the High Court was sustained: the Tribunal was to determine individual scales and consolidated wages on the specified Mumbai Port Trust basis, with interim payments under the 2016 settlement without the withdrawal condition. ONGC’s appeal was dismissed, any interim order dissolved, and no costs ordered. (¶¶ 9, 25-28)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s wage-determination remand and interim wage directions sustained. Any interim order dissolved; no costs.