ONGC EMPLOYEES MAZDOOR SABHA versus THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BASIN MANAGER, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 13-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
ONGC EMPLOYEES MAZDOOR SABHA
v.
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BASIN MANAGER,
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1570 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regularisation – Entitlement
of – Names called from employment exchange to fill up sanctioned
posts by respondent – Interview conducted – Issuance of
appointment order as per inter se merit of available candidate –
Thereafter, demand of regular appointment to term based employees
appointed by appellant-Union – Industrial dispute – Tribunal
directed regularisation of some of these workmen – Appellant-Union
filed civil application that the Tribunal had not granted appointment
to the workmen with effect from the date on which they had been
initially appointed and/or from the date on which they completed
probation – Single Judge of the High Court directed the respondent
Corporation to treat the concerned workmen on regular employment
with effect from the date the four year term comes to an end or the
date of first reissuance of appointment order as the case may be –
Letters Patent Appeals, filed thereagainst, dismissed by the Division
Bench – Issue as regards the date to treat the concerned workmen
to be on regular appointment – Held: Corporation must treat the
concerned workmen who have been regularized earlier to be in
regular employment on and from the date on which the industrial
dispute was referred and grant all actual benefits from the said
date till the date of decision by Single Judge of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: On facts in the instant case, as soon as the four
year period got over, the employees collectively through their
Union approached the Central Government and the Central
Government in exercise of its powers under the Industrial
Disputes Act referred an industrial dispute immediately on
21.12.2004. This dispute was ultimately answered by the Central
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 961
961
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Government Industrial Tribunal many years later only on
08.11.2011. On the facts of this case, therefore, the Corporation
must treat the concerned workmen which includes 111 out of
these 577 employees who have been regularized earlier, to be in
regular employment on and from the date on which the industrial
dispute was referred i.e. 21.12.2004 and accordingly grant all
actual benefits from the said date till 01.04.2013. The other
directions that have been given by the Single Judge will remain
intact. [Para 14][969-A-C]
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum
Coal Labour Union and Others (2015) 6 SCC 494;
Surendra Kumar and Others v. Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority and Others (2015) 14 SCC 382
– distinguished.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1;
Divisional Manager, A.P. SRTC and Others v. P.
Lakshmoji Rao and Others, (2004) 2 SC 433 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 6 SCC 494
distinguished
Para 9
(2015) 14 SCC 382
distinguished
Para 12
(2006) 4 SCC 1
referred to
Para 12
(2004) 2 SCC 433
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1570
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2015 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 290 of 2014.
K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., V.N. Subramanian, Apoorva Singhal,
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Advs. for the Appellant.
K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Sunil Kumar Jain, Abhishek Jain, Ms. Anusha
Agarwal, Ms. Kririka Bodha, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Between 1999 and 2001, the respondent-Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation (India) Ltd. (for short ‘the ONGC’) called for names from
the Employment Exchange to fill up sanctioned posts (Class III & IV)
of about 800 persons on a term basis i.e. for 4 years. Interview call
letters were issued and after conducting interviews, appointment orders
for the said period was issued as per inter se merit of the available
candidates.  It must be stated that the only error in this order of
employment is that no public advertisement in the newspapers was first
given.
3. The appellant-Union thereafter demanded regular appointments
to 577 term based employees who were appointed by the respondent-
ONGC during 1991 to 2001.  The conciliation proceedings which took
place in 2003 failed as a result of which an industrial dispute was referred
to the Industr

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