Latest News
Back
Document:
Regularisation of Workmen : ONGC case
Introduction:
The case was between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v/s Krishan Gopal & ors. There were appeals made in the various High Courts. Challenging all those appeals the case to towards Supreme Court of India. Wherein a two bench judge of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. passed an order after considering all the aspects relevant to the case. The decision of this larger bench was passed on 7th of February 2020.
Facts:
- In the year 2018 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed the judgement. The judgment was passed in the case of ONGC & Ors. v ONGC Field Operators Union & Ors. According to the judgement it directed regularisation of 450 workmen. The court of Andhra Pradesh also directed to move to the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- This can be done without seeking a refrence before industrial tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act. Basically the decision given by the high court of Andhra was relied upon the decision of the court of PCLU(supra).
- When the appeal was placed in the High court of delhi in the year 2015. The case was between ONGC v Krishan Gopal & Ors. The court gave similar decision as of the decision given in the court of PCLU (supra).
- Another appeal was filed in the High court of madras on 20 November 2015 wherein the judgement was passed. The Case was between M Rajan & Ors. v ONGC & Ors. According to the High Court of madras it rejected the regularisation of workmen. It held that no remedy can be provided under Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court of madras passed a totally different judgement from the rest of the courts.
- The next appeal was in the High court of Uttarakhand which was in the year 2017. The case was between ONGC v Tel AVM Prakartik Gas Karmchari Sangh. The appeal was in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this appeal 9 workmen were directed to be regularised. An award under the Industrial Disputes Act have been set aside. The High Court of Uttarakhand relied on the decision of PCLU.
- In the year 2018 an appeal was raised in the madras High Court wherein services of 14 messengers and 3 sanitary cleaners need to be regularised by the High Court. The case was between The Management of ONGC v Petroleum Employees Union. The High Court too relied on the judgement of this court in PCLU (Supra).
- The appellants seeks to challenge all the above judgements passed by the High Courts. These judgements were passed on the basis of the decision in PCLU.
- Finally the petition was presented before the two judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court observation and judgement:
- The court observed the decision of PCLU. The judgement passed in the PCLU states that on completion of 240 days of service in the period of 12 calendar months. Such workmen are entitled for regulaarisation of their services in to permenant post of corporation.
- The definition of certified standing orders were clearly interpretated. As per clause 2(ii) of the certified standing order it confers the right to regularisation. The Industrial Tribunal had rightly passed award directing regularisation of serviced of the workmen.
- A clear interpretation of “unfair labour practices” of schedule V, was taken in to consideration.
- It states that "to employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen."
After the observation the court passed the judgement it states that:
In the context of public employment the labour court and the industrial court cannot extend to the direction to order the regularisation. It will offend the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution.
- In case of wherein there are such circumstances that indulged employer in unfair labour practices by not filling up permenant posts. Even when such post are available. And also in case where continuing to employ workmen as temperory daily wage although they are performing the same work on lower wages.
- In both the above circumstances the Labour court or the Industrial court can grant relief to workmen.
- The court also directed that when there were no post available to grant regularisation. It would be impermissible merely on the basis of number of years of service.
- Same benefit would be provided to the workmen in the same scheme and at par to whom it is regularised.
A revision in the areas of PCLU need to be reconsidered. Such areas were:
-The interpretation placed on the provisions of clause 2(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders;
-The meaning and content of an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act
-The limitations, if any, on the power of the Labour and Industrial Courts to order regularisation in the absence of sanctioned posts.
Document:
