MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION versus MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 26-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION 
A 
v. 
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. 
JULY 26, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Employment Standing Orders 
Act, 1946-Respondent-Corporation engaged in exploration of mineral 
resources having various projects all over the country-Workmen making C 
claim for regularization and regular pay scale on the ground of having worked 
for several years-Corporation resorting to large scale retrenchment-
lndustrial dispute-Tribunal held that workmen are entitled to regularization 
and regular pay scales.,--Writ Petition by Corporation-Allowed by High 
Court-On appeal, Held: Respondent corporation is a big industry having 
many projects employing hundreds o.f workmen on temporary basis working D 
for several years-Their services cannot be arbitrarily terminated by way of 
retrenchment giving rise to industrial unrest-Directions issued to Tribunal to 
favourably consider the case of workmen. 
The Respondent-Corporation has been engaged in the exploration 
of mineral resources, having various projects all over the country. The E 
workmen engaged in respondent-Corporation made claims for 
regularization of their services and demand for regular wages as per the 
revision of pay scales on the ground that they had completed minimum 8 
years and maximum 20 years of service. Corporation, however, resorted 
to retrenchment of workmen which resulted in industrial unrest, giving F 
rise to industrial dispute. Labour Commissioner referred the matter on 
7.1.1993 to the Industrial Tribunal. Tribunal .held that all the workmen 
in dispute are entitled for regularization and for regular pay scales, DA, 
increments, leave facility from the date of publication of award. The award 
was published on 13.4.1998. The Corporation challenged the award by 
filing Writ Petition. Employee-Union also preferred Writ petition G 
J 
challenging the award to the extent the tribunal refused the relief of 
regular pay scales and regularization of the workmen from the date of 
reference. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the Corporation 
and dismissed the Writ Petition of Employee-Union and set aside the award 
87 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A passed by the Tribunal in entirety. Hence these appeals by Employee-
Union. 
During pendency, on 3.5.1999, this Court passed interim order 
directing the Corporation to provide work to the members of the Union 
as casual employees provided there is availability of work and willingness 
B of employees to go to the places where the work is available. 
Disposing of the appeals and issuing certain directions to the 
Tribunal, the Court 
HELD: I. According to the report of the ye;.r 1995-1996, the 
C Corporation had 50 projects. The Corporation is permanent and it has 
been doing the work continuously. When one project is completed, then 
work starts in another project. It does not appear that the work of the 
Corporation would come to an end. The Annual Report was considered 
by the Tribunal. It appears from the Annual Report and the Magazine of 
D the Corporation that the Corporation has sufficient work and the financial 
condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory. Ample material was 
placed to show that the temporary/contingent employees have been doing 
the work of permanent nature and the temporary employees are required 
to do work which was used to be done by skilled employees. 
E 
1101-G-H; 102-A-BJ 
2. The Respondent-Corporation is an industry governed by the 
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the provisions of the 
Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. The Standing Orders 
define temporary employee as one who has been engaged for work which 
is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a limited 
F period and a casual workman as one whose employment is of casual 
labour. Therefore, the employees engaged and continued for years together 
cannot be termed as temporary or casuals. 1102-C-EJ 
3.1. The respondent-Corporation itself effected transfer of employees 
from one project to another and granted them benefit e.g. T.A., D.A. etc. 
G The term contingent employee is totally unknown to Industrial Law. To 
deny the benefits available to regular employees, certain employees are 
termed as contingent workers. Once an employee completes 240 days, he 
is deemed to be a permanent employee. The t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.