Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a Direct Action notice raised by the Oil Field Employees Association on 26 August 2016, representing workmen engaged by contractors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). The workmen demanded wages and service conditions at par with regular ONGC employees. ONGC contended that these were contractors' workmen, not its own, and that a settlement dated 19 September 2016 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, involving six unions and 57 contractors, was binding on all similar workmen. This settlement was part of a Fair Wage Policy introduced by ONGC. The conciliation proceedings led to a failure report, and the Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Mumbai, under Section 10(2A)(1)(d) of the Act on 18 September 2017. The reference included demands for uniform policies, renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with pay revision from 1 January 2008, and an advance payment. ONGC challenged the reference in a writ petition, but the Bombay High Court rejected it on 29 January 2019, criticizing ONGC's conduct for not informing the conciliation officer of the settlement and for belatedly challenging jurisdiction. The Tribunal, in its award dated 17 July 2019, allowed the reference, declaring the demands legal and justified, and directed ONGC to enter into an MOU with pay revision and implement it within two months. ONGC then filed a writ petition against this award. The High Court, in its judgment dated 30 January 2020, sustained the award on substantive issues but partially allowed the petition, holding that the Tribunal failed to apply the basis of wage revision (referencing MbPT settlements) to individual workmen's cases. It remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determination of actual wage scales and allowances, and considered interim relief pending remand. The Supreme Court granted leave and was set to address the issue of the settlement's binding nature under Section 18(3)(d) of the Act, testing the High Court's reasoning. The legal issues centered on the binding effect of the settlement, the Tribunal's jurisdiction in wage fixation, and procedural conduct during conciliation. The court's analysis involved examining the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Sections 12(3) and 18(3)(d), and principles of industrial adjudication. The decision involved upholding the High Court's modification of the Tribunal's award, with directions for remand and consideration of interim relief, while the Supreme Court was poised to review the merits of the settlement issue.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Contract Labour - Wage Fixation and Settlement Binding - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 12(3), 18(3)(d) - Dispute involved workmen engaged by contractors of ONGC claiming wages at par with regular employees - Tribunal and High Court held settlement dated 19 September 2016 not binding under Section 18(3)(d) as it did not involve all unions and was not properly notified during conciliation - Supreme Court examined the issue on merit, testing the High Court's reasoning (Paras 3-4). B) Industrial Law - Tribunal Jurisdiction - Reference and Award Modification - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(2A)(1)(d) - Reference made by Central Government on 18 September 2017 regarding demands for uniform policies, MOU renewal with pay revision from 1 January 2008, and advance payment - Tribunal allowed reference, directing MOU renewal and implementation - High Court sustained award on substantive issues but remanded for determination of actual wage scales and allowances, citing tribunal's failure to apply basis to individual facts (Paras 5-9). C) Industrial Law - Procedural Conduct - Conciliation and Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ONGC questioned legality of reference in writ petition, rejected by High Court on 29 January 2019 for not informing conciliation officer of settlement and belated challenge - High Court held conduct not befitting state under Article 12 of Constitution, and tribunal could examine settlement's binding nature (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the settlement dated 19 September 2016 under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on the workmen represented by the respondent Unions, and the legality of the Tribunal's award on wage fixation and renewal of MOU
Final Decision
Supreme Court granted leave and is set to address the issue on merit; High Court sustained Tribunal award on substantive issues but remanded for determination of actual wage scales and allowances
Law Points
- Binding nature of settlements under Section 18(3)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- jurisdiction of tribunals in wage fixation
- principles of industrial adjudication
- interpretation of memoranda of understanding
- role of conciliation officers
