Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr vs Presiding Officer on 18 February, 2026

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:71462

washeries 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.

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:71462

Saluja 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:71462

was 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.

(Paras 5 to 7)

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:71462

decades. 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.]