Casual/contingent employees who have completed 240 days of continuous service within one year from the date of joining their service and whose names are found in the seniority list are entitled to regularisation of their services.

( 1 ) THE Court: By this writ petition petitioner prayed that the writ in nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees under the respondent No. 1 forthwith. In pursuance of list of seniority as published by the respondents in annexure 'a' and respondents be directed to fix the wages of the petitioners at par with the regular employees without any further delay.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act and petitioner No. 2 is General Secretary of the Union and petitioner Nos. 3 to 158 are the casual/contingent workers. The respondent No. 1 has been set up by the respondent No. 4 to carry out the research work in the field of Oil and Natural Gas within the territory of India. The respondent No. 1 for the purpose of carry out the research, employed some regular employees as well as engaged the workers on casual and contingent basis. There is a rules for recruitment of the regular employees but service conditions of the petitioners who are contingent employees are regulated and governed by the Certified Standing Orders of the Oil and National Gas Commission. The case of the petitioners that they have worked more than 240 days and employed long back but their services has not been regularised. The details of the date of their appointment and date of completion of 240 days has been given in annexure 'a'.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Dr. Pal has submitted that petitioners have completed more than 240 days rather some of them are working since 1982 onwards with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred as ONGC ). Their services should be regularised specially when their service conditions are governed by the Certified Standing Orders issued by the ONGC. He placed reliance on the various decisions such as AIR 1964 SC 1458, (1999)1 SCC 626, (1997) 6 SCC 723, (1991) 1 SCC 28, (1994) 5 SCC 304, AIR 1997 SC 645, (1995) supp. (2) SCC 611, AIR 1996 SC 2898, AIR 1999 SC 1160, (1998) 1 CLJ 539 and AIR 1999 SC 2577. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay submits that the petitioners are seasonal workers. Therefore, they have no right for their regularisation of the service even though they have completed 240 days. A seniority list has already been published of these contingent employees and they are being taken in the regular service as and when vacancy does arise. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the employees were retained under legal compulsion as there was status-quo order in their favour, when this writ was filed. Therefore, for the period from the date of writ filed, they are retained under compulsion that should not be taken adversely against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stay was granted in 1988 when the writ was filed but the respondents never moved application for vacation of stay and now we are in year 2000. So more than 10-11 years already passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners are retained in service under legal compulsion.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the services of the petitioners who are contingent/casual employees of the respondent No. 4 is governed by Certified Standing Orders issued by the department. The relevant portion of those certified Standing Orders as under :-"2. (i)classification of workmen, The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as : (a)Temporary and (b) Casual. (ii)A workman who has been on the rolls of the Commission has put in not less than 180 days of the attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workmen, provided that a temporary workmen who has put in not less than 240 days and who possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the Commission may be considered for convertion as regular employees".

( 5 ) WHETHER the petitioners are entitled for regularisation to consider this, I deem it