2006 Supreme(SC) 1143

2007(2) Supreme 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd.—Appellant
versus
Engineering Mazdoor Sangh—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6607 of 2005
With
Cont. Petn. (C) No. 164/2006 in C.A. No. 6607/2005
Decided on 20-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, V.N. Koura, Rakesh Sawhney, Ms. A. Mariarputham, Ms. Paramjit Benipal and Ms. Aruna Mathur (for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.) Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh Shalin Mehta and Rajiv Mishra (for P.H. Parekh & Co.) Advocates.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Recruitment of casual/contingent/temporary workmen for specified period—Their services were terminated at end of field season Respondent raised industrial dispute and demanded for regularisation of such workmen—Tribunal came to a finding that only a temporary workman who had put in not less than 240 days of attendance in a period of 12 consecutive months was entitled to be considered for conversion as regular employee—Tribunal observed that keeping workmen casual/badli or temporary over long spells of time amounted to unfair labour practice—Tribunal taking recourse to Certified Standing Orders held that a casual workman who put in attendance of 180 or more days in 12 consecutive months automatically became a temporary workman who could on completion of 240 days and possessing qualification be considered for conversion as regular employee—Respondent Union challenged the award in writ—Single Judge observed that there was no ban against treating a person to be regular even if permanent post was not available and passed direction accordingly—Division Bench in appeal held that workmen concerned should be notionally treated as regularized with effect from 1.5.1999—Appeal—Reasoning of Single Judge as well Division Bench was unacceptable—Directions given by Tribunal were reasonable and could be allowed to stand.

       Held : Having regard to the nature of employment and the period during which these field workers are employed, it would create various difficulties if the seasonal workmen were to be treated at par with regular employees as directed by the learned Single Judge. It would be even more difficult for the appellant to adjust the workmen in permanent employment when the need for them was only seasonal. Admittedly, these workmen who are employed for field survey work are employed for about six months in a year between November and May. If at all they are to be regularized, the appellant will have to find work for them during the months when their services would otherwise have not been required. As pointed out by Mr. Salve, previously the appellant had monopolistic control over geological survey work for oil and natural gas but today the scene had changed and it is just another competitor along with others, notwithstanding the fact that they are a government company. The appellant is now required to compete with others in securing exploration work and can only recruit field workers as and when required. Even then the learned Tribunal found a via media in directing that the 153 workmen who had admittedly completed 240 days and had acquired a temporary status be regularized against vacancies as and when such vacancies became available.(Para 14)

       We are of the view that the directions given by the learned Tribunal are reasonable and should be allowed to stand as against the directions given by the High Court, firstly to treat the said 153 workmen at par with the regular employees and thereafter to treat their services as having been notionally regularized from 1st May, 1999. We can, of course, add a few further safeguards in order to protect the interests of the said 153 workmen so that they are assured of employment as before.(Para 15)

       We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by setting aside the judgments and orders of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We, however, add that till such time as these 153 workmen are not absorbed against regular vacancies in the concerned category no recruitment from outside will be made by the appellant. Furthermore, even in matters of seasonal employment, the said 153 workmen or the numbers that remain after regularization from time to time, shall be first considered for employment before any other workmen are engaged for the same type of work in the field. The appellant should make a serious attempt to regularize the services of the workman concerned, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, as quickly as possible, but preferably within a period of two years from the date of this order.(Para 16)