Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Bibhucharan Dutta, S/o. Khagendra Nath Dutta and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Management Of Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.1012 Of 2014
Decided On : 21-11-2023
Regularization of Service - Contingent Workers - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the ONGC
Fact of the Case:
The case involves 16 writ petitioners who claim to be part of a group of contingent workers seeking regularization of their services as per the Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the ONGC. The management of ONGC had issued an advertisement inviting bids for engagement of contract laborers, which was challenged by the Association. The matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the members of the Association had failed to establish their claim of having completed 240 days of work within 12 consecutive months, as required for regularization. The court also noted that some of the documents produced by the workers were tampered and appeared to be fabricated, rendering them unworthy of credence. The court held that the burden of proof was on the workers to establish their claim, and the evidence presented was insufficient to do so.
Issues: The main issue was whether the members of the Association had worked for 240 days in a 12-month period and possessed the requisite qualifications for regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the workers to establish their claim of having worked for 240 days in a 12-month period, and the evidence presented was insufficient to do so. The court also emphasized that the Writ Court would not act as an appellate court and re-appreciate evidence to overturn the findings of the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed. The court found no good ground to interfere with the impugned Award dated 31.05.2013.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Baishya, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in connection with Reference Case No.3/2008 answering the Reference in the negative and against the writ petitioners.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 16 writ petitioners herein claim to be part of the 223 group of contingent workers who were members of the ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association (herein after referred to as the ‘Association’). The members of the aforesaid association claim that they had rendered more than 240 days of continuous work in a period of 12 calendar months and also possessed the minimum prescribed qualification and therefore, were entitled to be regularized in service as per the provisions of the “Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the ONGC”. When the management of the ONGC had failed to act on their request for regularization of service, intervention of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) was sought in the matter and the matter was accordingly, entrusted to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) so as to explore the possibilities of an amicable settlement of the dispute by and between the Association and the Management of the ONGC. The conciliation proceeding, however, ended in failure. Thereafter, the Management of ONGC had issued advertisement notice dated 11.11.1997 inviting bids for engagement of contract labourers. Aggrieved by the said advertisement notice, the Association had approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No.5744/1997 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.1998 inter-alia directing the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to pass an order under sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the failure report dated 27.10.1997 submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh and communicate the decision to the concerned parties. Pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.1998, the matter was examined by the Labour Ministry whereafter, vide letter dated 28.10.1998 the Ministry had communicated its opinion by stating that since the concerned workers are contingent/casual workers hence, their claim for regularization of service was not valid. The Association had, thereafter, assailed the letter dated 28.10.1998 by filing Civil Rule No.6771/1998 before this Court, which was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2005, setting aside the impugned letter with a further direction upon the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to refer the claim of the members of the Association to the Industrial Tribunal. The order dated 30.03.2005 was taken in an appeal by the Management of the ONGC in the form of Writ Appeal No.351/2005, which was dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2006. An SLP was thereafter, preferred by the Management before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of by the order dated 10.11.2008 with a direction that the cases of the workers i.e. the members of the Association, for regularization of their services, be referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. In terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, a reference being Reference Case No.03/2008 was registered before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Guwahati with the following schedule :-
The burden of proof is on the workers to establish their claim of having worked for 240 days in a 12-month period for regularization. The Writ Court will not act as an appellate court and re-apprecia....
The obligation of the state to ensure just and favorable conditions of work, the burden of proof on the employer to rebut the oral evidence of the workman, and the significance of drawing adverse inf....
Adverse inference can be drawn against employers for withholding evidence that could substantiate workers' claims for regular employment, necessitating reconsideration of their claims.
The initial burden of proof was on workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
Termination without valid reason and entitlement of wages for muster roll employees.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish continuous employment and violation of labor laws, and mere non-production of documents by the employer may not suffice to prove the claim.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The tribunal's findings on the regularization of workmen, based on their long service and lack of evidence from management, were upheld, illustrating the court's respect for factual determinations in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
