LexOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION versus KRISHAN GOPAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 661 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION v. KRISHAN GOPAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016) FEBRUARY 07, 2020 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Labour Laws: Regularisation – In terms of clause 2(ii) of ONGC’s Certified Standing Orders – Upheld in four impugned orders on the basis of judgment in *PCLU case – The plea of regularisation declined in one impugned order distinguishing the decision in *PCLU case – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The construction placed on the provisions of clause 2(ii) of Certified Standing Orders, in the decision in *PCLU case, does not prima facie appear to be correct – Besides the decision is also per in curiam – Therefore, the decision needs reconsideration – Matter to be placed before larger Bench to reconsider *PCLU case – Matters to be placed before Larger Bench also to consider applicability of principles laid down in #Umadevi case in the context of industrial adjudication – Reference to Larger Bench. Referring the matters to Larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. The decision in *PCLU Case holds that the workmen upon completion of 240 days’ service in a period of 12 calendar months “are entitled for regularisation of their services into permanent posts of the corporation”. The Court further held that under clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders, upon the completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year, the workmen have “acquired valid statutory right” and ought to have been “granted the status of regular employees” of the corporation on the ground that the corporation which is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The decision of the two judge Bench in *PCLU Case has placed a construction on the provisions of clause 2(ii) of the ONGC’s Certified Standing Orders which prima facie does not appear to [2020] 3 S.C.R. 661 661 A B C D E F G H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. be correct. Besides, the fact that the decision in *PCLU Case has not noticed the earlier judgment in **Engineering Mazdoor Sangh Case which pertained to ONGC’s Certified Standing Orders, the principles of law which have been expounded in *PCLU Case would require to be revisited. [Para 17] [673-F-H, 674-A-B] Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (2015) 6 SCC 494 : [2015] 5 SCR 474; State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 : [1992] 3 SCR 826; Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (2001) 7 SCC 346 : [2001] 3 SCR 1089; Regional Manager, State Bank of India v. Raja Ram (2004) 8 SCC 164; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (2006) 1 SCC 530; Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321 – referred to. 2. The second aspect on which the present appeals would require to be placed before a larger Bench for consideration is in regard to the applicability of the principles set out and formulated by the Constitution Bench in *Umadevi Case in the context of industrial adjudication. [Para 18] [674-C-D] UP Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh (2007) 5 SCC 755 : [2007] 5 SCR 256; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556; Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union (2001) 7 SCC 346 : [2001] 3 SCR 1089; State of Maharashtra v. R S Bhonde (2005) 6 SCC 751 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 763; Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 SCC 190 : [2014] 2 SCR 955 – referred to. 3. The decision in *PCLU Case needs to be revisited in order to set the position in law which it adopts in conformity with the principles emerging from the earlier line of precedent. More specifically, the areas on which *PCLU Case needs reconsideration are:(i) The interpretation placed on the provisions of clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders; (ii) The meaning and content of an unfair labour practice under Section A B C D E F G H 663 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act; (iii) The limitations, if any, on the power of the Labour and Industrial Courts to order regularisation in the absence of sanctioned posts. [Para 24] [679-D-G] Case Law Reference [2015] 5 SCR 474 referred to Para 1 [1992] 3 SCR 826 referred to Para 2 [2006] 3 SCR 953 referred to Para 2 [2001] 3 SCR 1089 referred to Para 4 (2004) 8 SCC 164 referred to Para 5 (2006) 1 SCC 530 referred to Para 5 [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 177 referred to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.