Calcutta High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 April, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/496/2024
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
-VERSUS-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Ranajit Talukdar, Adv.
Mr. Amit Ghosh, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Suprovat Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Anup Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Bhisma Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent
Nos.2-10 : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suvodip Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Balaram Patra, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 12.03.2026 Judgment on : 16.04.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :-
1. The present dispute concerns a claim for absorption of 8 (eight) casual
workmen in IOCL vide the Order of Reference dated 29th December,
2009.
2. The petitioner‟s case is that the said 8 (eight) casual workmen named in
the Order of Reference were originally the employees of IBP Co. Ltd. at
2
Budge Budge Liquid Oil Bottling Plant [LOBP], and they were working as
temporary security guards.
3. IBP Co. Ltd. merged with IOCL on 30th April, 2007 with the
effective date of 1st April, 2004.
4. Previously an industrial dispute was raised by 24 casual workmen
claiming absorption in service of IBP Co. Ltd., which resulted in a “No
Dispute” award.
5. IBP Co. Ltd. had its Standing Orders, The Standing Orders of IOCL
certified as in 2008 permit casual workmen to be a recognized class of
workmen.
6. The petitioner’s case is that, IBP Co. Ltd. carried out recruitment
process in phases between 1992 and 1997, wherein out of the aforesaid
24 casual workmen, 16 had been absorbed in service. It is an admitted
fact that the 16 casual workmen, who have been absorbed, were canteen
workers. The 8(eight) persons named in the Order of this Reference were
temporary/casual security guards. They were differently situated than
the canteen workers. There might be a question of regularization/
absorption of canteen workers in the statutory canteen of IBP Co. Ltd.
under the Factories Act, 1948. But no such provision exists for security
guards.
7. It is stated that, in the Budge Budge Plant, IOCL has rolled out the entire
security services to third parties/ agencies.
8. The present dispute was raised in 2007 by these 8 (eight) persons
claiming regularization in service, through a written representation.
3
9. The recorded notes of conciliation, meeting would reveal that Petroleum
Employees Union alleged discriminatory treatment adopted by the
management of IBP Co. Ltd. in not absorbing the 8 workers by way of an
Unfair Labour Practice.
10. In course of adjudication before the Learned Central Government
Industrial Tribunal [CGIT], the name of the Union was sought to be
changed and Indian Oil Shramik Union made an application for
substitution of its name in place of Petroleum Employees Union. Such
application was rejected by an order dated 1 January 2019.
11. Learned CGIT has answered Reference No. 19 of 2010 by an award dated
19th December, 2023, which had been published on 18th January, 2024
by the Central Government.
12. The petitioner argues that the award records that the 8 (eight) casual
workmen were also called for the interview of IBP Co. Ltd. for
regularization, but they did not succeed at the interview. Persons not
being qualified at interview are barred by the principle of estoppel from
claiming the relief which they could have achieved only through the same
process. These 8 persons have been treated equally in allowing their
participation at their interview. However, they did not succeed. They
cannot now turn around and make out a completely different case
towards obtaining their relief of absorption.
13. The petitioner further states that the learned CGIT held that the 8 (eight)
casual workmen were working as security guards at Budge Budge Plant.
4
It has also been held that since statutory deduction was made
from the monthly wages of the casual workers, they were not to be
treated as casual/intermittent workers.
The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that although the 8 (eight)
persons were shown as temporary security guards, they had worked in
various departments and not as security guards. Such a reasoning is
fallacious since every department might have security guards, and
placement at the department would not mean that the 8 persons named
in the Order of Reference were not rendering the duties as security
guards. Furthermore, such a third case made out by the Tribunal is
devoid of the pleadings of the Union.
14. It is stated that the learned CGIT has principally proceeded on the basis
of the Certified Standing Orders of IBP Co. Ltd. to uphold the claim for
absorption. The aspect of victimization of 8 (eight) casual workmen vis-a-
vis the 16 workmen absorbed by IBP Co. Ltd. was also aimed against IBP
Co. Ltd.
The Learned CGIT held that these 8 (eight) persons have worked
for 30 years with IBP Co. Ltd./IOCL and hence they were entitled to be
absorbed as Junior Attendants like the previous 16 similarly placed
employees with retrospective effect from 1st March, 2004 with all
financial benefits to which a regular employee is entitled to.
15. The 16 workers absorbed by IBP Co. Ltd. were canteen workers (as
admitted by the Union).
5
It is stated that the persons working as security guards could
not have been directed to be absorbed as Junior Attendants. This would
result in creation of posts, rather than absorption in service.
16. The petitioner argues that the impugned award principally proceeds on
the failure of IBP Co. Ltd. to absorb 8 (eight) casual workmen. On the
purported failure of IBP Co. Ltd., IOCL cannot be made to suffer an
award. Creation of posts or directing absorption as Junior Attendants is
completely beyond the scope of the Reference. A Tribunal cannot proceed
beyond the terms of reference.
17. The Learned CGIT recorded that M.W.1 was not produced for further
cross-examination by the Union. Such a finding is contrary to records
since M.W. I was produced for cross-examination on three dates.
Therefore, the basis for coming to the conclusion is contrary to records
hence, The impugned award of the Learned Tribunal thus proceeds on
erroneous exclusion of evidence of M.W.1.
18. The petitioner submits that persons working in different posts cannot
claim equality for the purpose of treatment towards absorption. Treating
unequals as equals is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
19. IOCL does not engage regular security guards at its establishment. The
policy of IOCL has not been questioned.
20. It is stated that Union had not claimed absorption in the post of Junior
Attendant. It sought for permanent treatment of 8 (eight) workmen as
security guards.
6
No evidence has been put forward as regards the similarity of the
nature of work performed by the eight persons as security guards and
the work of Junior Attendants.
21. By giving a retrospective effect to the relief from 2004, IOCL has been
saddled with liability for the period during which it had no control over
the Plant.
22. The relief of absorption has been granted w.e.f. 01.03.2004, prior to the
appointed date of merger of IBP Co. Ltd. with 10CL; whereas the Scheme
of Merger approved by the Hon’ble High Court had only provided for the
continuance or transfer of the employees of the transferor company to
the new company (IOCL).
The award therefore actually militates against the Scheme of
Merger. By giving a retrospective effect to the relief of absorption, the
management of IOCL has been cast with an obligation which the Merger
Scheme had not envisaged.
23. That impugned award is, thus, liable to be set aside.
24. The Respondent/Union on filing their written notes and argument
made out a case as follows:-
(a) That all the eight workmen were kept as casual employee by the writ
petitioner which is in gross violation of Section 2ra of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. That out of the 8 workmen, 2 are still in service.
The other have died and/or superannuated.
(b) It is stated that The Fifth Schedule, serial 10 does not permit “To
employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue
7
them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status
and privileges of permanent workmen.”
(c) That the writ petitioner used to control, supervise and pay wages
which included basic, HRA, bonus, overtime and used to provide the
facilities of PF, ESI and Professional Tax to the members of the union
which is the deciding factor for ascertaining master servant relation
and there exist no contractors.
(d) The writ petitioner used to sanction leave and had power to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against the members.
(e) They have failed to produce the interview documents. As such the
adverse presumption may be drawn that the respondent workmen
were deprived by the petitioner.
25. The petitioner relies upon the following judgments:-
i) 1994 (2) CHN 109 (Sri Arunangshu Chakrabarty vs. M/s. Aaj Kaal
Publishers & Ors. [para 27];
ii) 2003 (3) CHN 53 (Organon India Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal) [paras 5
& 6].
iii) (1986) 2 SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K. S.
Jagannathan & Anr.) [para 6]
26. Judgments relied upon by the Respondent/Union:-
(i) 2024 SCC online SC 3826 (Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. Para-
22, 23, and 25)
(ii) 2025 SCC Online SC 221 (Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad, Para- 12 to 15.)
8
(iii) 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 (Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. Stte of U.P.
& Anr., Para- 17 to 19)
(iv) 2026 Scc online Se 129 (Bhol Nath vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
Para 12 to 14 )
27. Thus from the pleadings of both sides, written notes, arguments and
materials on record, the following is evident:
(i) The Scheme of Amalgamation dated 30.04.2007 of M/s. IBP Co.
Ltd. with M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is on record.
(ii) Clause 3.11(a) of the Scheme lays down :-
“3.11 (a) With effect from the Appointed Date and upon the
Scheme becoming effective, any and all employees of the
Transferor Company as on the Effective Date shall
become employees of the Transferee Company employed
on existing or similar terms and conditions as to
remuneration, and without any breach or
interruption of service.”
28. The letter dated 09.04.2007 submitted by the Union to IBP notes the
following relevant statements:-
“It may be mentioned that they had been called by you in
interview in 1994 and 1997. You had been selected 50 workers
as permanent in the above two years but they were deprived from
the great opportunity.
Moreover, you have again selected 16 workers as permanent
including 8 no. of workers were Canteen Staff (Contractor’s
worker) in 2003. In spite of the said workers are working as
casual till now, I think it is fully unjustified and illegal for them.”
9
29. There was a “no dispute” award between the erstwhile company and the
Union/workmen, which included the 8 workmen on 3rd October, 2009,
wherein the reference was as follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of IBP Co. Ltd. Calcutta in
not absorbing permanently the services of the 24 workmen
mentioned in the Annexure who are employed on call basis is
justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to
?”
30. The reference was in respect of the management of IBP Co. Ltd. and not
the petitioner, IOCL.
31. Finally due to the non-appearance of the Union on several dates, the
tribunal passed a “No Dispute” Award.
32. Subsequently 16 workers were absorbed as permanent, but the 8 (eight)
Casual workers herein were not given the same benefit.
33. On 27.06.2027 and 17.03.2008, a representation was again submitted
by the Union to the petitioner herein.
34. On 23.06.2008, the Union raised the dispute before the Asst. Labour
Commission (Central). On the failure of the conciliation the reference
was made.
35. The reference dated 29.12.2009 contains the following issues:-
“The Schedule
Whether the action of the management of IOCL (formerly IBP Co.
Ltd.), Budge Budge Plant, Kolkata in not absorbing S/o Shri
Mohan Roy, Iquebal Ahemed Khan, Austo Karmakar, Netai
Chandra Das, Paresh Sarkar, Bhola Jana, Motilal Shaw and
10Chitta Ranjan Roychowdhury, Casual Workmen is justified ?
What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?
36. It is on record that IBPCL, Budge Budge was compelled to absorb the
other 16 workmen as they had resorted to unruly activities, which led
to law and order problems and cessation of work at Budge Budge plant.
Admittedly, those absorbed 16 casual workmen were not employed as
security guards like present workmen.
37. The eight workmen all work as Security Guards, which the petitioner
now states has been outsourced.
38. The Tribunal has held that:-
“it is undisputed fact that eight concerned workmen were/are
working at IBPCL/ IOCL, Budge Budge Plant, Kolkata as casual
workmen.
That apart Exhibit-W-1 shows that Mohan Roy has been
working for IBPCL as a General Workman since 1989. Exhibit-W-2
temporary staff pay roll for the month of July, 2010 shows that Sri
Mohan Roy was paid salary/wages by IOCL, Budge Budge. He was
paid Basic Pay HRA and Overtime. From his salary contribution
towards EPF. ESI and P. Tax were deducted.
Exhibit-W-3 dated 19-08-1991 issued by IBPCL shows that
the workman Iquebal Ahemed Khan was called for interview for the
post of service staff. His temporary pay roll for the month of
September, 2009 also shows that he was paid Basic pay, HRA,
11Overtime and Bonus. That contribution towards EPF, ESI and P Tax
were deducted from his salary.
Exhibit-W-3/1 shows that Sri Austo Karmakar too was called
for interview for the post of Jr. Operator (Field) by IBPCL on
28th October, 1993. His temporary pay roll for the month of July
2010 also shows that he was paid Basic Pay, HRA, Overtime and
Bonus. That contribution towards EPF ESI and P Tax were deducted
from his salary.
Similarly Exhibit-W-3/2 shows that Sri Netai Chandra Das
ton was called for interview for the post of Service Staff/
General Workman by IBPCL in the year 1996 and he has been
working for IBPCL since 1992.
Exhibit W-3/3 shows that Sri Paresh Sarkar too was called
for an interview by IBPCL on 26th June, 1992. His temporary pay
roll for the month of July, 2010 also shows that he was paid Basic
pay, HRA, Overtime and Bonus. That contribution towards EPF ESI
and P.Tax were deducted from his salary.
Exhibit -W-3/4 shows that Sri Bhola Jana too was called for
an interview by IBPCL on 04-07-1992. His temporary pay roll for
the month of July, 2010 also shows that he was paid Basic pay,
HRA, Overtime and Bonus. That contribution towards EPF, ESI and
P Tax were deducted from his salary.
Exhibit-W-3/5 shows that Sri Chitta Ranjan Roy Chowdhury
was called for an interview for the post of Service Staff/General
12Workman by IBPCL on 19 December, 1996. His temporary pay roll
for the month of June, 2009 also shows that he was paid Basic Pay,
HRA, Overtime and Bonus. That contribution towards EPF, ESI and
P.Tax were deducted from his salary.
Exhibit-W-4/1 shows that Indian Oil Corpn issued Identity
Cards to Sri Austo Karmakar and Sri Chitta Ranjan Roychowdhury.
Exhibit-W-5 shows that workman Si Mohan Roy, Iquebal
Ahemed Khan, Austo Karmakar, Netai Chandra Das, Paresh Sarkar,
Bhola Jana, Motilal Shaw and Chitta Ranjan Roychowdhury were
working as security guards at BGB since 1989, 1990, 1992 and
1993.
The concerned workmen were engaged by IBPCL after
taking interview against casual general posts and not as
Security Guards. That they have been working since 1989,
1990, 1992 and 1993 for IBPCL/ later IOCL.”
39. Thus, it appears that concerned workmen have been discharging
permanent nature of duty for the management of IBPCL and later for
IOCL for decades together and they have been paid basic pay with HRA,
bonus and overtime. From their monthly gross wages, deduction was
made towards EPF, ESI and P. Tax which is not normally done in case of
casual workers employed to do intermittent job or sporadic nature of job.
Exhibit-W-5, note sheet prepared by the management for
submission before Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 15 of
2002, show that the concerned workmen have been shown as
13
temporary Security Guards at BGB since 1989, 1990, 1992 and
1993 and the remaining 16 workmen as Staff Canteen.
40. The tribunal treating the present 8 workmen as casual temporary
workmen held that they were similarly placed as the 16 workmen, who
were absorbed, due to their causing disturbance in running of the
factory/establishment.
41. Copy of the agreement of amalgamation shows that IBPCL merged with
IOCL and on such amalgamation all the rights and liabilities of IBPCL
was transferred along with its employees to IOCL on existing or
similar terms and conditions as to the remuneration an without any
breach or interruption of service.
42. The tribunal finally held as follows:-
“Therefore, in view of clause 4 of the standing order of IBPCL, a
temporary employee who is engaged without any break for a
period of three months will be treated as employee on probation to
fill a vacancy on the permanent roll and his service for this
purpose shall date from the first day of the unbroken period than
being served. So, in view of clause 4 of the standing order those
eight workmen are entitled to be absorbed against the permanent
posts in IOCL/IBPCI.”
43. It appears that the tribunal has held so, by relying upon the standing
order of IBPCL, which on amalgamation with IOCL does not exist
anymore, IOCL having its own standing order.
44. On hearing both sides, and considering the materials on record,
including the impugned award, it appears that, the issue in reference
was as follows:-
14
“Whether the action of the management of IOCL (formerly
IBP Co. Ltd.), Budge Budge Plant, Kolkata in not absorbing
Shri Mohan Roy, Iqyuebal Ahemed Khan Austo Karmakar,
Netai Chandra Das, Paresh Sarkar, Bhola Jana, Motilal
Shaw and Chitta Ranjan Roychowdhury, Casual workmen is
justified ? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled
to ?”
45. The eight workmen were engaged as security guards on casual basis on
the basis of selection procedure/interview followed by the management of
IBPCL in the years 1990, 1992 and 1993 i.e. much before the
amalgamation with IOCL in the year 2007.
46. After passing of such “no dispute award”, the management of IOCL had
absorbed 16 out of 24 workmen of the said reference in permanent posts
w.e.f. 01-03-2003/2004, but excluding the present 8 workmen.
47. These 8 casual workers became the employees of IOCL as per clause
3.11(a) of the Scheme of Amalgamation by the IBPCL.
3.11(a) With effect from the Appointed Date and upon the Scheme
becoming effective, any and all employees of the Transferor
Company as on the Effective Date shall become employees of the
Transferee Company employed on existing or similar terms and
conditions as to remuneration, and without any breach or
interruption of service.
48. Thus the service herein is to be taken as continuous since joining
IBPCL. It appears that after the „no dispute‟ award, there was no
challenge to it and was thus accepted by the workmen which included
the present 8 casual workmen.
15
49. Even though the 16 out of 24 workmen were absorbed, no fresh dispute
was raised by these 8 casual workmen from 2002 to 2007 (till
amalgamation), in spite of there being a fresh cause of action.
50. Thus the said 8 employees remained casual employee as on the date of
amalgamation with IOCL and their service conditions remained as with
IBPCL.
51. Admittedly, the 16 workers were absorbed subsequently, which these 8
workers claim was by way of “unfair labour practice”.
52. From 2002 to 2007, these 8 workers did not raise any fresh dispute
claiming absorption, being similarly placed or alleging unfair labour
practice by the IBPCL.
53. The case/allegation of “unfair labour practice” alleged against IBPCL is
not part of the scheme of amalgamation which can shift to IOCL and the
said allegation thus does not apply to IOCL.
54. The 8 workmen herein are all working in the post of security guards in
IOCL since amalgamation and were taken as per the scheme of
amalgamation though the security services of the establishment of
IOCL/petitioner herein are now being managed by DGR personnel, in
view of the Govt. of India, Department of Public Enterprises office memo
no.6/22/93-GL-15-DPF(SC/ST) dated 01-02-1994. Therefore, there is
no permanent post of security guards in IOCL.
55. The entry of the 8 workmen (with IBPCL) was by way of interview as has
been held by the tribunal as general workers.
16
56. Though it is admitted that the 16 workmen were absorbed by the earlier
management, it is stated that the present workers were allegedly not
successful in the interview/examinations, but as no documents could
be produced by the present management, the tribunal refused to
believe their case.
57. The tribunal by way of documents exhibited also held that the 8
workmen were all engaged as casual/service staff/general workmen
and later posed as security guards.
Conclusion :
58. The 8 workmen herein became part of the petitioner company w.e.f. from
2007, by virtue of the Memorandum of Amalgamation.
59. Clause 3.11(a) therein, states about all employees and with effect from
the Appointed Date and upon the Scheme becoming effective, any and all
employees of the Transferor Company as on the Effective Date shall
become employees of the Transferee Company employed on existing or
similar terms and conditions as to remuneration, and without any
breach or interruption of service. Thus, their service tenure is to be
calculated from the date they first joined their services with IBPCL.
60. After a „no dispute‟ award on 04.09.2002 in Reference Case No.15 of
2002, in an industrial dispute raised by 24 casual workmen, the
management of IBPCL absorbed 16 out of 24, leaving out the 8
petitioners in 2003/2004.
17
61. The petitioner IOCL agrees that from 2003 to 2007 (till amalgamation),
no dispute was raised by these workmen before IBPCL.
62. The petitioner states that IBPCL was compelled to absorb the 16
workmen as they were causing disturbance.
63. The 8 workmen working since the 1990s, then raised a dispute for
absorption in 2009, two years after the amalgamation.
64. The Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) held as follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have
been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in
the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can
erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is
a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment
stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations concerning employment
stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment security,
18particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could
exacerbate long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example
from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this
case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these
workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled
to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that
large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of
avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of
the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker,
should determine employment status and the corresponding rights
and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
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 long-
term 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
19benefits 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 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
20in 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 underlines 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, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.
65. In Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Worker’s
Union in Civil Appeal No(s).4092-4093/2024 decided on 12th March,
2024 the Supreme Court held:-
21
“20. It is proved that the remaining workers stand on the
same footing as the regularized employees, and they were
wrongly not made part of the settlement. This is established
by the Tribunal, by examining the nature of work
undertaken by the first set of 19 workmen and that of the
other 13 workmen. It also examined Shri Arun Ch. Hota
(WW3), the Deputy General Manager (MW2), Mr.
Udayshankar Gonelal, the Personal Manager (MW3) and
Shri S. Agarwal, the Project Officer (MW4). The Tribunal
finally came to the conclusion that the nature of the duties
performed by the 13 workmen are perennial in nature. The
appellant has failed to establish any distinction between
the two sets of workers. The Tribunal was, therefore,
justified in answering the reference and returning the
finding that they hold the same status as the regularized
employees.
21. We are also not impressed with the artificial distinction
which the appellant sought to bring about between the 19
workers who were regularized and the 13 workers who
were left out. The evidence on record discloses that, of the
total 32 workmen, 19 workers worked in the bunker, 6
worked in the Coal Handling Plant, and 7 worked on the
railway siding. However, of the 19 workers who were
regularized, 16 worked in the bunker, and 3 worked in the
Coal Handling Plant. However, 3 workers from the same
bunker, 3 workers from the same Coal Handling Plant and
again 7 workers from the same railway siding were not
regularized. A tabulated representation of the above
description is as follows:
Site of work No. of No. of No. of
workers workers who workers
who were not
executed regularized regularized
works
Bunker 19 16 3
Coal 6 3 3
Handling
Plant
Railway 7 - 7
Siding
Total: 32 19 13
22
22. The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that
is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a conclusion
that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is
wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we do not find any
grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the
appellant. However, as the case was argued at length we
thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the
appeals. What we have referred to hereinabove are all
findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High
Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue
of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous
working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is
no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment
and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and
therefore, there will be no order restricting their
wages.”
66. The documents marked Exhibit W-series show that these 8 workmen
working as security guards were engaged by way of an interview, for the
posts of general workmen, service staff, Jr. Operator (Field) etc.
67. Thus their entry/employment was by the regular process of an interview
and not a back door entry.
68. 36 years have passed. These 8 workmen remain casual employees even
though they perform jobs of permanent nature and having been made to
work for such a long period without being regularized is unjustified and
an abuse of labour.
69. Though the petitioner claims that these 8 workmen did not succeed in
the examination held for regularization, no documents or evidence was
placed before the tribunal to substantiate the said statements.
23
70. These 8 workmen are part of the 24 workmen, out of which 16 workmen
have been absorbed and they stand on the same footing as the 16
workmen.
71. Even though the petitioner claims that the 16 workmen were canteen
workers and thus could be absorbed, considering the nature of work to
be carried out, it is proved before the Tribunal that these 8 workmen
though may be made to work as security guards were employed as
general casual workers and thus they stand on the same footing as the
16 workmen absorbed.
72. The distinction between the two sets (16 and 8) is clearly artificial, as
there was materials/evidence before the tribunal to prove that all the 24
workmen stand on similar footing.
73. The case of the petitioner that these 8 workmen have raised the dispute
after a long delay is not a ground to defeat their claim, if the same is
legal and justified, as such dispute can be raised at any stage, if it prima
facie exists.
74. The 8 workmen get wages which includes HRA, Bonus, Overtime as they
discharge permanent nature of duty and GPF, ESI and P. Tax is also
deducted from the salary/wages.
75. The petitioner‟s contention that the company now has outsourced their
security service and, as such, the 8 workmen working as security guard
cannot be absorbed is not acceptable, considering that they were
engaged as “General Casual Workers” and, as such, can be absorbed
against any such sanctioned/permanent posts.
24
76. The petitioners case that the 16 workmen were absorbed as they were
causing disturbance cannot be a ground to deny absorption to these 8
workmen, who stand on the same footing, more so, as no evidence is on
record to show that the 16 workmen absorbed were successful in the
examination or that these 8 workmen standing on the same footing
were unsuccessful.
77. Admittedly, these 8 workmen are part of the 24 workmen whose
industrial dispute/reference ended in a „no dispute award‟ in 2002 and
the 16 out of 24 were immediately absorbed, leaving out these 8
workmen, giving rise to a fresh cause of action for a dispute.
78. Thus the order of the tribunal requires no interference being in
accordance with law.
79. WPO/496/2024 is disposed of.
80. Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of.
81. Certified photostat copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the
parties subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
Later
After the judgment is delivered in open Court, the petitioner prays for an
order of stay of the operation of the judgment.
25
Considering the issue addressed in this judgment, this Court is not
inclined to grant the prayer for stay and accordingly prayer for stay is rejected.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)