The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions required for the regularization of workmen, as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and the standing orders of the company, must be fulfilled, including the availability of permanent vacancy, for claiming permanency.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed writ petition challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the award dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in case No. CGIT/LC/R/45/2016 in case of Shri Sanjay Bangde and 10 Others vs. the Unit Head, Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. whereby learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 11 and the held that the action of the petitioner in not giving status of permanency to the respondents workmen is not justified and held that the respondents No. 1 to 11 are entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis after expiry of initial one year and extended two year terms and are entitled to be regularized.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondents workmen who were working with the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central who has initiated conciliation proceeding which became failure, therefore, the Conciliation Officer sent the failure report to the Central Government. The Central Government in turn has sent the reference to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur on 12.04.2010 on the following terms of reference:-

1. Whether the action of the management Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status of permanency to 11 workmen namely Sarvshri Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal, Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra Kumar and Ram Singh and regularizing their services is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

2. Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., a Central Public Sector undertaking Company, the Government of India is appropriate Government.”

3. The workmen respondents No. 1 to 11 filed their statement of claim mainly contending that the workmen are initially appointed for one year from the date of joining to the duties and pursuant to the appointment order they joined in August, 2012. It has been further contended that they were appointed after interview and trade test conducted by the petitioner. It has been further contended that as per the appointment order appointment can be extended for further period of 2 years subject to the availability of the vacancy, requirement prevailing at that time and job performance, accordingly, the temporary appointment of the workmen were extended for 2 years. It has been further contended that the appointment order provides for permanency of the post which reads as under :-

“However in the long term requirement and availabity of permanent vacancy for the post, your case can be considered for permanent employment, subject to your satisfactory performance during your temporary remployment with us, and on fulfilling other criteria's, in the pay scale of Rs.8630-3%-12080/ - as 'Helper-Cum-Geaser – III' for which an offer of appointment with detailed terms and conditions will be issued separately.”

4. Thus, if the workmen fulfill requirement of the posts they deserve to be regularised. Clause 3(a) of the Standing order which has been framed as per provisions of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act 1946, provides classification of workmen. The performance of respondents was satisfactory to the management and extension of tenure period is conclusive prove that there is requirement of the workmen and post of Helper-Cum-Greaser is available for regularization of the workman. Thus, they have prayed for answering the reference in affirmative in favour of the respondents.

5. The petitioner has filed its reply to the statement of claim denying the allegation made in the statement of claim filed by the workmen. It has been specifically contended that as per the order of appointment issued to the workmen in the year 2012 it was clearly mentioned that the engagement is purely temporary for period of 1 year and upon exigency the terms of service may be extende