The discretion to grant regularization and confer benefits to employees lies with the Tribunal and Single Judge, even if the appointments were irregular.

Jayant M. Patel, J.

1. As all the appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are being considered simultaneously.

2. We may also record that for the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the employee union shall be referred to as the union/employees and the employer ONGC Ltd. shall be referred to as ONGC/employer.

3. The short facts of the case appear to be that ONGC had sanctioned post of about more than 800 in numbers, however, for the mode of recruitment, it appears that ONGC called for the names from the Employment Exchange instead public advertisement in the newspaper. When the names were called for from the Employment Exchange for the posts in question, it was provided for a term of four years. It appears that thereafter, the interview call letters were issued and after conducting the interviews, the Appointment Orders were issued as per the inter se merit of the available candidates. It appears that the terms and conditions at the time of appointment to the employees concerned, were the same as were being provided for the regularly selected candidates. The employees concerned joined the services with the ONGC as per the terms of appointment, they were sent for training, they completed the probation period and they contributed their respective amount towards C.P.F. etc. and they also successfully completed four years' tenure. Thereafter, extension was also given in respect of some of the employees. However, ONGC, while giving extension, considered fresh appointment and further, the attempts were also made to fill up the posts by regular advertisement. It appears that, at that stage, on or about 21/08/2003, a dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A charter of demands was submitted which included demand No. 1 for regularization of term based employees. There were no successful conciliation and ultimately, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the following demands:

"Whether the demand of the ONGC Employees Majdoor Sabha, Baroda to give regular appointment to 577 term based appointees (list enclosed) is proper or just? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

4. The said reference was registered as CGITA of 1476 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of convenience). The Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings, passed the following operative order:

"Issue No. 1 & 11:

In view of the findings given to issue No. III, IV, V, VI and VII. I further find and hold that the reference sent by the appropriate government for adjudication by this tribunal is maintainable and the second party union have got valid cause of action in this case to raise demand.

22. Issue No. VIII:

Upon arriving at the findings in the foregoing paragraphs to issue No. I to VII this Tribunal hereby pass the following orders:

(i) Out of 577 term base appointees of 1999, 2000 and 2001 as per list attached to the reference, those who either expired or resigned or terminated or tenure complete or are absent are now out of the court and so those are not entitled to get any relief inspite of raising demand by the union under the reference.

(ii) Out of 577 term base appointees as per list attached to the reference those who have been selected and appointed against regular vacancies so far and those who were also appointed on regular post being dependents of deceased employees (DOD's) so far are not entitled to get any relief in this reference case.

(iii) Out of 577 term base appointees as per list attached to the reference, those who raised dispute for their regularization also on completing 240 days of works in the preceding calendar years and the award passed in their favour and the list of such employees covered under Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Civil Application No. 6607 of 2005 regarding filed party