Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr vs Presiding Officer on 18 February, 2026
2022:CHC-AS:71462
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
WPA 20646 of 2010
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr.
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saikat Ray Chowdhury,
Mr. Aritra Ghosh.
For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dinendra Nath Chatterjee,
Mr. Madhusudan Mandal.
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026
Judgment delivered on : 18.02.2026
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award
dated 26th May, 2010 Reference no. 38 of 1998 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Asansol.
2. Vide the impugned order the learned Tribunal held as follows:-
"In the above circumstances, it can safely be
concluded that the action of the Management of
Bhojudih Coal Washery of BCCL in not
departmentalizing the 16 referred workmen employed
in the job of maintenance of Water Supply System at
Page 2 2022:CHC-AS:71462
Intake well Bhojudih Coal Washery is not legal and
justified. The workmen are entitled to be
departmentalized in appropriate grade i.e. grade-I
General Mazdoor and to be treated as Employee of
the BCCL from the date of their engagement and shall
be entitled to all service benefits as admissible to the
regular employees. Monetary benefits accruing out of
it shall be disbursed within two months of the
notification pending regularization of service papers.
Hence it is ordered
ORDER
Let an award as above be and same is passed. Send
the copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Sd/-
Presiding Officer”
3. Both parties have filed their written notes in the present case.
4. The petitioners’ case herein is that the industrial Tribunal in
accordance to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, read with the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, has/had no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned
Award. The issue in the reference before the Tribunal was as
follows:-
“THE SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Bhojudih Coal Washery
of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is justified in not
departmentalising the 16 contract workers (as shown
in the annexure) employed in the job of maintenance
of water Supply System at Intake Well at Bhojudih
Coal Washery? If not, to what relief are the workmen
concerned entitled and from which date ?”
Page 3 2022:CHC-AS:71462
5. It is stated by the petitioner that the tribunal adjudicating the
issue under reference, did not deal with the question while
passing the impugned award.
6. It is submitted that under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government could refer
any dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal only
where the matters are related to/specified in the Second
Schedule or Third Schedule of the said Act.
7. It is further stated that the appropriate Government, Central or
State, before issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, had to
take into consideration some factors including whether the job
contemplated by the contract labourers is of perennial in
nature or not.
8. It is thus submitted that the said tribunal had no jurisdiction
to pass the said award and it was only the appropriate
government who is the authority to consider the case under
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act
1970).
9. Considering the point of jurisdiction it is on record that the
reference made to the tribunal, which adjudicated the same,
was made by the appropriate government and as such the point
of jurisdiction raised is decided in the affirmative.
Page 4 2022:CHC-AS:71462
10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 16 contract
labourers were engaged by different contractors during the
summer season, only to channelize the water to the intake well
through temporary channels, when the upstream waters of
river Damodar is far away.
11. The said workers were also temporarily engaged in the job of
distillation of intake well, annual maintenance of intake well
pump and maintenance of pipeline from intake well to siding
pool and cleaning of foot valve of the pump and its
surroundings, as and when required and it is thus stated that
the said job did not exist continuously throughout the year
and was not permanent in nature.
12. It is stated that the respondent Union in this case has claimed
the absorption of the contract workers upon comparing their
work under Bhojudih Coal Washery with that of Dugda Coal
Washery and Patherdih Coal Washery. The Union on behalf of
the contract workers claimed that since contract workers of the
Dugda Coal Washery and the Patherdih Coal Washery were
made permanent, their employment was also required to be
made permanent on that ground only.
13. In support of the said claim of the petitioner’s case is that the
case of Dugda Coal Washery and the Patherdih Coal Washery is
just the reverse case of Bhojudih Coal Washery, as the said
Page 5 2022:CHC-AS:71462washeries are situated at the upstream of river Damodar and
work which exists there is not seasonal in nature, but
throughout the year.
14. It is further stated that departmentalization of outside workers,
cannot form the subject matter of Industrial Dispute as there is
no Employer-Employee relationship and the petitioner thus
prays for setting aside of the said award which it is submitted,
is not in accordance with law.
15. The respondent no. 3 union herein on behalf of the 16 workmen
has argued on filing its written notes, that the facts of this case
is that the workers namely Charan Bouri with 15 other workers
have been working as contract labour, who are engaged by
different contractors and the said workers are working
continuously from the start of the job of maintenance for water
supply system at the intake well of Bhojudih Coal Washery of
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited from the year 1983.
16. That the Bhojudih Coal Washery was a unit under the Central
Coal Washery organization of erstwhile Hindustan Steel Limited
(HSL) and then the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). It was
brought under the Administrative control of Bharat Cooking
Coal Limited. The washery was established for washing of raw
coal for supply to different steel plants.
Page 6 2022:CHC-AS:71462
17. Before establishment of the organization, water supply was
being made available from intake well at the Bank of river
Damodar to Bhojudih Coal Washery Plant and also for supply
of drinking water to colonies of the company. Uninterrupted
working for supply of water is a permanent nature of job,
the same set of labours which include the referred workmen
worked all the time, though as many as nine contractors
were changed but they presently work with the same employer.
18. The union has urged for direction to the management for
regularization of the service of the referred workmen by taking
them on the permanent roll of the company as category-1
general mazdoor and allow them all the benefits with effect from
01.01.1983.
19. That the said workers are temporarily engaged for minimum
wages of the intake pumps and the well and the said temporary
jobs have not been prohibited by the Government under the
Contract Labour Act.
20. The workmen are working under different contractors and facts
also remain undisputed that the workmen have been working
since 1983 to till now in the same job under different
contractors of the employer.
Page 7 2022:CHC-AS:71462
21. Some workers have died while in service. All the 16 workers
have been engaged on the job of maintenance of continuous
water supply system of intake well at Bhojudih Coal Washer.
22. This job is of permanent and perennial nature. These workmen
have been continuously working from 1st June 1983 till date.
The regular supply of water to the plaint as also to the resident
of the Colony of Bhojudih Coal Washer is entirely dependent on
this system and this system is continuous and perennial in
nature.
23. Thus Bhojudih Coal Washery is the principal employer.
Bhojudih Coal Washery awards the contract and the
contractors engage the labour. The same set of labour has been
engaged on the said job for the last 40 years continuously.
Thus they are due for regularization against permanent job on
equal pay as that of regular company employee engaged by
Bhojudih Coal Washery.
24. In support of their contentions that the industrial tribunal has
jurisdiction to decide a dispute under Section 10(1) of the ID
Act. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in (2015) 9 SCC 786, Durgapur Casual
Workers Union versus Food Corporation of India; (2010) 9
Page 8 2022:CHC-AS:71462
SCC 247 State of Karnataka and Ors. Versus M.L. Kesari
and Ors. for regularization and few judgments.
25. From the materials on record it is evident that:-
i. 16 referred workmen are employed with the petitioner
company since 1983 (for over 40 year) though through
various contractors, who were being admittedly engaged
by the petitioner company as contractors, who in turn
employed labour/workmen.
ii. It is claimed by the respondent 16 referred workmen that
they stand on the same footing as the workers of other
washeries and as such are entitled to the same benefits
as them, though the petitioners have tried to put forward
a case that these workmen are engaged on seasonal basis
and as such cannot be considered for benefits similar to
regular employees of the company, leave aside the claim
of regularization.
iii. From the impugned order, it appears that the issues
framed by the tribunal are as follows:-
“1) Whethere for the working of the workmen
under different Contractors of the BCCL is to be
considered as Employer Employee relation
between the parties?
Page 9 2022:CHC-AS:71462
2) Whether the workmen have been
working against permanent or temporary
nature of job.
3) Whether the workmen are entitled to be
regularized in the service.”
iv. Findings of the tribunal in the impugned award are:-
“a) There is no dispute, that the Contractor under
whom the workmen have been working are the
Contractors of the BCCL and that same set of
workers which include the referred workmen have
been continuously working in the same job and at
same place since the year 1983.
b) The oral evidence of the P/w 1 goes to show that
workers were engaged in supply of water to the
plant for production of goods to the benefit of the
Management. Supply of water is absolutely
required for working of the washery as well as for
drinking purpose. Evidence of the witness for the
union, Haradhon Mudi (ww-1) on this score
remained unchallenged. In view of the above there
is no persistent of doubt about the permanent
nature of the works in which the referred workmen
have been engaged.
Page 10 2022:CHC-AS:71462
c) The Management has failed to prove that the works
are prohibited under the C.L.R.A. Act. Or at all that
the contractors have been issued with the license
under the said Act to consider the workmen as
contract labours under them. There is thus reason
to believe that the real facts are being camouflaged.
There is a clear admission by the MW-1 that the
workmen have been engaged in supply of water to
the plant for production of goods for the benefit of
the establishment.
d) The presence, of intermediate contractors with
whom alone the workers have immediate or direct
relationship in contract is of consequence, when on
lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of tutors
governing employment, decern the naked Truth,
though drepped in different perfect paper
arrangement that the real employer is the
management “xxxx”.”
26. The Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited vs.
Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr., Civil
Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
26634-26635 of 2019), decided on February 07, 2023,
held:-
Page 11 2022:CHC-AS:71462
“13. …………..it is not necessary to regularize
the services of the workmen who have died, retired or
still in employment and even in the absence of
such a status, they shall be entitled to the
following service benefits:
(i)Pay-scale at par with the employees who are
on the roll of the appellant – Authority;
(ii) The benefit of provident fund;
(iii) The benefit under the Gratuity Act;
(iv) The other service benefits including the
medical allowance which the appellant –
Authority has granted to its employees under
the Service Regulations or through
administrative decisions from time to time.
Such benefits will be admissible from the cut-
off date determined by the Tribunal.”
5. In Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), the
Supreme Court further held:-
“12. The issue whether the workmen were
employed by IISCO or they were contractual
employees is essentially a question of fact which has
been examined in depth by the Tribunal, learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the
High Court, holding concurrently that the workmen
were actually the employees of the appellant –
Authority. Such a finding of fact does not warrant for
any interference by this Court.
14. Let the arrears of these benefits be released
to the respondent – workmen within four months from
the date of receipt of bank account details of the
individual employees/their legal heirs. In case the
service benefits are released within four months, no
interest shall be paid to the respondent – workmen.
In case the payments are delayed, the workmen will
be entitled for interest at the rate of 7% p.a.”
27. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad
Jakhmola and Ors., (2019) 13 SCC 82, the Supreme Court
held:-
“24. We may hasten to add that this view of
the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai
Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai
Page 12 2022:CHC-AS:71462Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as follows : (SCC pp.
437-38, para 65)
“65. Thus, it can be concluded that the
relevant factors to be taken into consideration
to establish an employer-employee
relationship would include, inter alia:
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e.
whether there exists complete control and
supervision.
As regards extent of control and
supervision, we have already taken note of the
observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat
Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16]
, International Airport Authority of India
case [International Airport Authority of
India v. International Air Cargo Workers’
Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC
(L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO
Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756
: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] .”
28. In Hussainbhai, Calicut vs The Alath Factory Thezhilali
Union, Kozhikode & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 257, the Supreme
Court held:-
“Held:
The facts found are that the work done by the
workmen was an integral part of the industry
concerned, that the raw material was supplied
by the management, that the factory premises
belonged to the management, that the
equipment used also belonged to the
management, and that the finished product
Page 13 2022:CHC-AS:71462was taken by the management for its own
trade. The workmen were broadly under the
control of the management and defective
articles were directed to be rectified by the
management. This concatenation of
circumstances is conclusive that the workmen
were the workmen of the petitioner.
(Para 2)
The true test is where a worker or group
of workers labour to produce goods or services
and these goods or services are for the
business of another, that other is, in fact, the
employer. He has economic control over the
workers’ subsistence, skill and continued
employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off,
the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of
intermediate contractors with whom alone the
workers have immediate or direct relation-ship
ex contractu is of no consequence, when, on
lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of
factors governing employment, the naked truth
is discerned, and especially since it is one of
the myriad devices resorted to by manage-
ments to avoid the responsibility when labour
legislation casts welfare obligations on the real
employer based on Arts. 38, 32, 42, 43 and
43A. If livelihood of the workmen substantially
depends on labour rendered to produce goods
and services for the benefit and satisfaction of
enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or
the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot
snap the real life-bond. If, however, there is
total dissociation, in fact, between the
disowning management and the aggrieved
workmen, the employer is in substance and in
real life-terms, by another.
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Union of
India, (1974) 4 SCC 43: 1974 SCC (L & S) 205,
followed.”
Page 14 2022:CHC-AS:71462
29. In Subramaniam S. Arjun & 15 Ors. vs Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. And………., decided on 23 August, 2023,
the Bombay High Court held:-
“59. Having dealt with the rival submissions, this
Court in exercise of plenary writ jurisdiction must look
at the substance of the matter and where justice of
the case lies. The petitioners rendered services as
contract workmen to ONGC in excess of 15 years, on
an average. The petitioners services were so
utilized through different contractors. The
contractors changed but the principal employer
remained constant. ONGC had entered into a MoU
to make a provision to extend the gratuity benefit to
the contract-workmen. In this setting of the matter, if
the submission on behalf of ONGC is to be accepted,
the contractor through whom the services of the
petitioner were being used on the date of the
cessation of employment, would alone be the person
liable to pay the gratuity for the entire service tenure
and that would bring in the element of the liability of
the last contractor to pay gratuity even in respect of
the past service for which the contract employees
were not employed by him. Such liability can only be
fastened either under a statutory obligation or
contractual stipulation. No statutory prescription to
cover such liability could be pressed into service by
the ONGC. Nor the Court finds any such contract
between last contractor and the predecessor
contractors, or for that matter, between the last
contractor and ONGC. In contrast, in the case
of Cummins (supra), the successor contractor had
incurred an obligation pursuant to a contract with the
predecessor contractor, to pay gratuity.
60. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that
the Appellate Authority was in error in setting aside
the order passed by the Controlling Authority
fastening the liability on ONGC to pay gratuity.
Petitions thus deserve to be allowed.”
Page 15 2022:CHC-AS:71462
30. In Indian Institute of Technology Bombay vs Tanaji Babaji
Lad & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2024, the Bombay
High Court held:-
“31) When IIT, Bombay is specific in directing deposit
of ESIC and PF contribution, it is incomprehensible as
to why liability for payment of gratuity was not
specifically incorporated in the Work Order. It appears
that in the description of work appended to the
contract, there is a condition for continuous
deployment of workmen for maximum 89 days
excluding Sundays and holidays against various
requisition issued by the Estate Office. Far from
engaging different workers for maximum tenure of 89
days, the Respondents continued to work with IIT,
Bombay notwithstanding replacement of various
contractors. In fact, if the tests laid down by the Apex
Court in Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air
India Ltd.& Ors, AIRONLINE 2013 SC 652,
Respondent would be in a position to satisfy most of
the said tests for the purpose of establishment of
employer -employee relationship even under the ID
Act. Since the enquiry into existence of
employeremployee relationship in the context of PG
Act is summary or preliminary in nature, which does
not bind parties outside the framework of PG Act, it is
not necessary to satisfy all the tests laid down in
Balwant Rai Saluja (supra). Be that as it may. It is
not necessary to delve deeper into the terms and
conditions of Work Order to which Respondents are
not parties. The present case involves peculiar facts
and circumstances, under which some workmen
have continued with IIT-Bombay through
multiple contractors. I am therefore, convinced
that for the limited purpose of payment of
gratuity, Respondents are required to be treated
as employee of IIT Bombay. No interference is
therefore warranted in the impugned orders.”
31. In Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Air India Ltd. &
Ors., 2014 (9) SCC 407, on decided on 25 August, 2014, the
Supreme Court held:-
Page 16 2022:CHC-AS:71462
“1. In view of the difference of opinion by two learned
Judges, and by referral order dated 13.11.2013 of
this Court, these Civil Appeals are placed before us for
our consideration and decision. The question before
this bench is whether the workmen engaged in
statutory canteens, through a contractor, could be
treated as employees of the principal establishment.
2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the
learned Judges differed in their opinion regarding the
liability of the principal employer running statutory
canteens and further regarding the status of the
workmen engaged thereof. The learned Judges
differed on the aspect of supervision and control
which was exercised by the Air India Ltd. (for short,
“the Air India”)- respondent No. 1, and the Hotel
Corporations of India Ltd. (for short, “the HCI”)-
respondent No. 2, over the said workmen employed in
these canteens. The learned Judges also had varying
interpretations regarding the status of the HCI as a
sham and camouflage subsidiary by the Air India
created mainly to deprive the legitimate statutory and
fundamental rights of the concerned workmen and the
necessity to pierce the veil to ascertain their relation
with the principal employer.
84. In our considered view, and in light of the
principles applied in the Haldia case (supra), such
control would have nothing to do with either the
appointment, dismissal or removal from service, or the
taking of disciplinary action against the workmen
working in the canteen. The mere fact that the Air
India has a certain degree of control over the HCI,
does not mean that the employees working in the
canteen are the Air India’s employees. The Air India
exercises control that is in the nature of supervision.
Being the primary shareholder in the HCI and
shouldering certain financial burdens such as
providing with the subsidies as required by law, the
Air India would be entitled to have an opinion or a say
in ensuring effective utilization of resources, monetary
or otherwise. The said supervision or control would
appear to be merely to ensure due maintenance of
standards and quality in the said canteen.
85. Therefore, in our considered view and in light of
the above, the appellants-workmen could not be said
to be under the effective and absolute control of Air
Page 17 2022:CHC-AS:71462
India. The Air India merely has control of supervision
over the working of the given statutory canteen.
Issues regarding appointment of the said workmen,
their dismissal, payment of their salaries, etc. are
within the control of the HCI. It cannot be then said
that the appellants are the workmen of Air India and
therefore are entitled to regularization of their
services.
86. It would be pertinent to mention, at this stage,
that there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of
appointment, experience, qualifications, etc., between
the regular employees of the Air India and the
workers of the given canteen. Therefore, the
appellants-workmen cannot be placed at the same
footing as the Air India’s regular employees, and
thereby claim the same benefits as bestowed upon
the latter. It would also be gainsaid to note the fact
that the appellants-herein made no claim or prayer
against either of the other respondents, that is, the
HCI or the Chefair.
87. In terms of the above, the reference is answered
as follows :
The workers engaged by a contractor to work in the
statutory canteen of a factory would be the workers of
the said factory, but only for the purposes of the Act,
1948, and not for other purposes, and further for the
said workers, to be called the employees of the
factory for all purposes, they would need to satisfy
the test of employer-employee relationship and it must
be shown that the employer exercises absolute and
effective control over the said workers.”
32. In the present case:-
a) The workers were appointed through contractors.
b) Wages was paid by the contractors.
c) The workers though working under one contractor
after another, worked with the same principal
employer, the petitioner herein.
Page 18 2022:CHC-AS:71462
33. In Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors., (2024 INSC 1034),
decided on 20th December 2024, the Supreme Court held:-
“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions, often
face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they
have increasingly become a mechanism to evade
longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless
of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between
them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
Page 19 2022:CHC-AS:71462decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who
were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but
merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of
cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective
application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose,
effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale.
By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles
of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
Page 20 2022:CHC-AS:71462
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour
practices in the country.”
34. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo v. Union of
India (2024 INSC 1034) sets a significant precedent for the
regularization of long-serving temporary employees in
government institutions. The judgment clarifies that:-
Lengthy and uninterrupted service in essential
functions can warrant regularization, even if
initial appointments were irregular.
The misuse of temporary or part-time labels to
deny employees their rightful claims is
unacceptable and contrary to principles of
fairness and equity.
The decision discourages the exploitation of
workers through temporary contracts and
arbitrary terminations, encouraging government
institutions to adhere to fair employment
practices.
The judgment is likely to influence future cases
involving similar disputes, guiding courts to look
beyond the initial terms of engagement and
consider the actual nature and duration of
service.
It reinforces the responsibility of government
departments to lead by example in providing
stable and fair employment, thereby setting a
higher standard for the private sector as well.
35. Thus in the guidelines of the Supreme Court, to consider a
prayer for regularization of a casual worker the criterias are:-
i. Length of service,
ii. Whether working in the vacancy of a permanent post.
Page 21 2022:CHC-AS:71462
iii. Whether the worker carried out the duties of a regular
employee for a substantial period of his service.
iv. Etc.
36. In the present case, the 16 referred workers have put in about
40 years of service, working under the same principle employer
being the petitioner here, doing work perennial in nature.
37. Thus, the award dated 26th May, 2010, in Reference No. 38
of 1998, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol, being in
accordance with law, requires no interference.
38. WPA 20646 of 2010 is dismissed.
39. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
41. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for,
be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all
necessary legal formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]
