Synopsis

This judgment by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismisses an intra-court appeal filed against a Single Judge's order quashing a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The reference sought to adjudicate whether the contract labourers at Indian Oil Corporation's Mathura Refinery were employees of the Corporation or of the contractor. The court held that the same issue had already been conclusively decided by a Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in an award dated 15.09.1989, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 15.02.1991, holding that there was no employer-employee relationship. Therefore, no industrial dispute existed on the date of the fresh reference, and the reference was rightly quashed. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on judgments that require the industrial adjudicator to examine whether the contract is a camouflage, as such an examination presupposes the existence of a dispute, which was already settled.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr., LPA 8/2021, decided on 27.03.2026 (Delhi High Court - DB)
Coram: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia (Division Bench)
Core Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Delhi High Court upholds quashing of industrial reference; holds that issue of employer-employee relationship already settled by earlier award affirmed by Supreme Court, hence no industrial dispute existed.

2. Legal framework

This judgment involves the interplay between the ID Act and the CLRA Act, and the doctrine of res judicata.

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act):
  Section 10(1) and (2A): Empowers the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication to a Tribunal or Labour Court.
  The cou

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.