LexOIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD. versus ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD. A v. ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH NOVEMBER 20, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Labour Laws: Unfair labour practice-Casual/Contingent/temporary workmen employed for six months in a year for field survey work-Such employees C working over a long period of time-Claim of regularisation as permanent workmen-Tribunal holding that workmen having acquired temporary status could be considered for conversion as regular employee when they complete 2 40 days of attendance in a period of I 2 consecutive months, against vacancies as and when such vacancies become available-Single Judge of High Court D holding that person to be treated as regular even if a permanent post was not available-Division Bench directing that the workman be notionally treated as regularized with effect from I st May, 1999 and to be given actual benefits at par with regular employees, with effect ji·om I st May, 2005-0n appeal, held : Direction cannot be implemented seeing the nature of work and the period of employment-Thus, direction by the tribunal being E reasonable is restored-Orders of both the High Court set aside-Certified standing Orders-Rule 2-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant-ONGC is engaged in the exploration of petroleum. The said work is seasonal, for about 6 months in a year between November and May. F Every year when such survey work begins, ONGC recruits casuaVcontingent/ temporary workmen for specified periods and terminates their services at the end of the field season. Respondent-Union sought regularization of such workmen as permanent workman from the date of their engagement. It also filed a complaint alleging that the ONGC had altered the terms of service of the workmen by giving work to contractors in preference to the casual/ G contingent/temporary workmen. Thereafter, Tribunal held that ONGC on obtaining its prior permission could terminate the services of the casual/ temporary workmen on the ground of no work. ONGC then sought permission to terminate the services of casuaVtemporary workmen mentioned in the list 177 H 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A Tribunal directed termination of services of 80 casual/contingent/temporary workmen, out of269 workmen indicated in the list filed by the Union. With regard to the eligibility for appointment to regular post, tribunal taking recourse to Rule 2 of the Certified Standing Orders held that a casual workmen who put in attendance of 180 or more days in 12 consecutive months automatically become a temporary workman who could after completion of 240 B days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and poseessing qualifications be considered for conversion as a regular employee. It rejected the list of269 workmen shown by the Union and accepted the list by the Chief Geophysicist showing about 189 workmen and directed ONGC that as and when vacancy to regular post arise they would be considered for C regularisation. Respondent-Union challenged the order of the tribunal. Single Judge of High Court held that though regularization could not be effected in the absence of availability of permanent posts, but a person could be treated to be regular even if a permanent post was not available and that the concerned D workmen would have to wait for their turn for being made permanent as and when permanent posts become available. It modified the order of the Tribunal and extended the benefits to all workmen who fulfilled the requirement. Appellant filed an appeal. Division Bench of High Court directed that the workman should be notionally treated as regularized with effect from 1st May, E 1999 and that the surviving employees out of the 189 employees be given actual benefits at par with regular employees, with effect from 1st May, 2005. Hence the present matters. F Disposing of the matters, the Court HELD: 1.1. The reasoning both of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in firstly_ directing that the concerned 153 workmen be treated at par with regular employees as far as all benefits are concerned, except for being given permanent status and the subsequent direction of the Division Bench directing that they be treated as having been notionally regularized with effect from 1st May, 1999 cannot be concurred G with. Having regard to the nature of employment an~ the period during which these field workers are employed, it would cre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.