IMPORTANT POINT
The employees engaged and continued for years together cannot be termed as temporary or casuals.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 11, 12 — Claim of regularization — Temporary/contingent employees doing work of permanent nature and temporary employees are required to do work which was used to be done by skilled employees — Nature of work done by the Management is that they use work to explore the minerals in different parts of the country after taking over any project — Corporation is permanent and financial condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory — Directions made for absorption and regularization of such employees.
       Held : Usual practice of the Corporation has been to keep contingent workmen for long duration of time and offering regular appointment periodically which abruptly had stopped due to unfair attitude of the Management. Reduction in work leading to poor physical and financial performance has been a result of incompetent and poor Management which cannot be allowed to play with the future of thousands of employees and their families.(Para 36)
       The present reference was made in January, 1993. The employees working in the Corporation, it was submitted, used to do work far away from civilization and facilities and they did not get amenities with regard to the health and residence although such facilities are available to the permanent workmen doing similar work. The workmen lived away from their families while working on a project and faced all types of hardships. It shall be proper to regularize the services of the workmen who have worked for several years. However, the workmen in order to succeed will have to substantiate their claim as per the established principles of law. We feel it just and proper to issue the following directions to the Tribunal which is directed to consider the following directions and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunities to both the parties.
       1.The Tribunal is directed to again scrutinize all the records already placed by the appellant-Union and also the records placed by the Management and discuss and deliberate with all the parties and ultimately arrive at a conclusion in regard to the genuineness and authenticity of each and every claimant for regularization. This exercise shall be done within nine months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
       2.Subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry of the award, the respondent-Corporation should absorb them permanently and regularize their services, the persons to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them on a perennial basis.
       3.The respondent-Corporation may absorb on permanent basis only such of those workmen who have not completed the age of superannuation.
       4.The respondent-Corporation are not required to absorb on permanent basis such of the workmen who are found medically unfit for such employment.
       5.The absorption of the eligible workmen on a regular and permanent basis by the Corporation does not disable the Corporation from utilizing their services for any other manual work for the Corporation upon its needs.
       6.In the matter of absorption, the persons who have worked for longer period as contingent workmen/adhoc/temporary shall be preferred to those who have to be in shorter period of work.
       7.The workman should have worked for more than 240 days in a year. The conduct and behaviour of the workman should be good.(Para 37)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. — The appellant before us is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees’ Union (AITUC) through its General Secretary, Respondent No. 1 is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., though its Chairman and Managing Director, Seminari Hills, Nagpur and the second respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

2. The appellant-Union preferred the above appeals against the common judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 1981 filed by respondent No. 1 (Corporation) and dismissed Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 filed by the Union and has set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.3.1998.

3. The appellant is a registered Trade Union affiliated to AITUC. Respondent No. 1 (Corporation) is a Public Sector Undertaking managed and controlled by the Ministry of Mines and is engaged in the exploration/discovery of mineral prospects/resources for rapid industrial growth in the country. Respondent No. 1 is having various projects all over the country including their branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has employed approx. 5000 employees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work in the projects.

4. According to the Union, the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” have completed minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they were not regularized nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales. Consequently, the workmen started demanded regular pay scales and their regularization in service. On the other hand, the Corporation resorted to retrenchment of workmen which caused serious industrial unrest and ultimately the Union took up the matter and held discussions with the Corporation.

5. Since the discussion failed, an industrial dispute was raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Nagpur who held various conciliation meetings with both the parties. Even the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitted a failure report to the Ministry of Labour, who in turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur vide order dated 7.1.1993. The question referred to the Tribunal reads thus :

“Whether the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S/Shri A.K. Janson 2144 others (as per Annexures `A’ attached) and depriving them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date?

AND

Whether the action of the management of MECL, Nagpur in not providing employment to Smt. Surya Gayee and 63 others (As per Annexure-B attached) as the legal heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds is justified? If not, to what relief are they entitled to and from what date?”

6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both the parties and considering the arguments, vide its award dated 24.3.1998, held that all the workmen in dispute, whose names have been shown in Annexure “A” i.e. 2145 workmen, be regularized in the services of respondent No. 1 within a period of three months and further held that the workmen were entitled for regular pay scales, increments, dearness allowance, leave facility from the date of publication of the award. The Tribunal, however, did not award the regularization and regular pay scales from the date of the order of reference. The Tribunal answered the issue in relation to the appointments of heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in favour of the Union and thus is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 664

IMPORTANT POINTThe employees engaged and continued for years together cannot be termed as temporary or casuals.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
The employees engaged and continued for years together cannot be termed as temporary or casuals.