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 labor disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. The writ petition is of the management. It was moved before this Bench on 9^th November, 2022, when Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appearing on their behalf had submitted, there had been orders made by coordinate Benches, requiring affidavits being filed.

The requirement was because though there was direction for regularization of 43 workmen, no particulars could be provided by the union, at whose instance the reference was caused. His client has also filed affidavit. We reproduce below paragraphs 3 and 4 from our said order dated 9^th November, 2022.

“3. We find, impugned is award dated 30^th March, 2010. We have perused order of reference being whether 80 causal workers are entitled for regularization along with payment for equal pay on equal work. The tribunal found on facts, inter alia, 43 persons out of 80 workmen were seeking regularization. Particulars of the persons have been given in page-11 of the award. It goes on to record a further finding of fact that the management had regularized good number of Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employees with approval of the Board of Directors. Those regularized stood in same footing as the 43. Hence, opinion of the tribunal that claim for regularization made by them merits consideration owing to them having rendered unblemished service under the corporation for more than 18 years. This too is a finding of fact.

4. The management will be heard on adjourned date regarding perversity on any one or more of above recorded findings of fact.” (Emphasis supplied)

2. Today Mr. Mishra submits, perusal of impugned award dated 30^th March, 2010 will reveal there was no evidence before the labour Court to say that 43 workmen had been appointed/engaged by his client. During pendency of the writ petition, several of the 43 have crossed the age of superannuation. One of them raised separate industrial dispute, regarding which the reference is still pending. He adds by reference to since set aside judgment dated 21^st April, 2017 of the learned Single Judge, earlier disposing of the writ petition that three workers of the 43, against serial nos.34, 35 and 43, had no document to support they ever having worked for his client.

3. Mr. Mishra refers to failure report dated 23^rd September, 2008 of conciliation made under section 12(4) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits, there was clear admission by the workmen that they had been engaged through the contractors. This was the position on compliance of specific direction made by the Managing Director on circular dated 6^th May, 1986. Text of the circular is reproduced below:

“Please recall that from time to time we have taken decisions not to engage N.M.Rs. without specific sanction from Managing Director and also disengage them on completion of the project for which N.M.Rs. were engaged. I hope, all are taking steps to review the position work-wise under your division and disengaging the N.M.Rs. when not required to reduce the burden of our Corporation, i.e. cannot survive unless all responsible office bearers are conscious that they have a moral duty to see that the Corporation finances are not overburdened due to our negligence. If we do not follow certain discipline, this organization will not be able to take the burden and as a consequence even the existing 1000 or so employees will face serious difficulty in retaining their jobs.

I would, therefore, once again request you that no new hands should be taken as N.M.Rs. without specific approval from the Managing Director to ensure control on the number of staff. Copies of circular No.11994 dated 20.05.83, 3850 dated 23.02.1985 and No.2539 dated 3.2.1986