Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 877
2007(2) JLJ 177
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees‘ Union v. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. and another
Civil Appeals No.2027-28 of 2000 : against the order of M.P. High Court at Jabalpur passed in Writ Petitions No. 1981 and 5423 of 1998;
Decided on 26.7.2006.
V.A. Bobde with K.P. Viswanathan, Satyajit Saha and
Mrs. Y.D. Khanna for appellant;
V.R. Reddy with T.G. Narayanan Nair for respondents.
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- Ss.10, 11 and 12 -- Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 -- standing orders para 1 Cl.(b) -- Corporation engaged in permanent work -- its employees are not contingent or temporary workmen -- they are entitled to be regularised -- direction issued.
According to the Union, the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" have completed minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they were not regularized nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales. Consequently, the workmen started demanding regular pay scales and their regularization in service. On the other hand, the Corporation resorted to retrenchment of workmen. [Para 4
Held : The nature of work done by the management is that they use work to explore the minerals in different parts of the country after taking over any project. According to the report of the year 1995-1996, the Corporation had 50 projects. The Corporation is permanent and it has been doing the work continuously. When one project is completed, then work starts in another project. It does not appear that the work of the Corporation could come to an end. [Para 32
It shall be proper to regularize the services of the workmen who have worked for several years. However, the workmen in order to succeed will have to substantiate their claim as per the established principles of law. We feel it just and proper to issue the following directions to the Tribunal which is directed to consider the following directions and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunities to both the parties :
1. The Tribunal is directed to again scrutinize all the records already placed by the appellant-Union and also the records placed by the management and discuss and deliberate with all the parties and ultimately arrive at a conclusion in regard to the genuineness and authenticity of each and every claimant for regularization. This exercise shall be done within nine months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
2. Subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry of the award, the respondent-Corporation should absorb them permanently and regularize their services, the persons to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them on a perennial basis.
3. The respondent-Corporation may absorb on permanent basis only such of those workmen who have not completed the age of superannuation.
4. The respondent-Corporation are not required to absorb on permanent basis such of the workmen who are found medically unfit for such employment.
5. The absorption of the eligible workmen on a regular and permanent basis by the Corporation does not disable the Corporation from utilizing their services for any other manual work for the Corporation upon its needs.
6. In the matter of absorption, the persons who have worked for longer period as contingent workmen/ad hoc/temporary shall be preferred to those who have to be in shorter period of work.
7. The workmen should have worked for more than 240 days in a year. The conduct and behaviour of the workman should be good. IT 2006(4) SC 154 relied on. [Para 39
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 10] 11 rFkk 12 && vkS|ksfxd fu;kstu ¼LFkk;h vkns‘k½ vf/kfu;e] 1946 && LFkk;h vkns‘k iSjk 1 [kaM ¼[k½ && fuxe dk dk;Z LFkk;h && mlds deZpkjh vkdfLed vFkok vLFkk;h deZdkj ugha gS && os fu;fer fd, tkus ds gdnkj gSa && funs‘k tkjh fd;k x;kA
la?k ds vuqlkj] [kfut [kkst fuxe fy- ¼,rfLeu~ ^^fuxe** dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ esa fu;ksftr deZdkjksa us U;wure 8 o"kZ rFkk vf/kdre 20 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj yh gS fdarq u rks os fu;fer gh fd, x, gSa vkSj u mudks osrueku ds iqujh{k.k ds vuqlkj fu;fer osru gh lanÙk fd;k x;k gSA ifj.kker% deZdkj] fu;fer osrueku vkSj lsok esa vius fu;ferhdj.k dh ek¡x dj jgs gSaA nwljh vksj fuxe us deZdkjksa dh N¡Vuh izkjaHk dj nh gSA ¼iSjk 4
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izca/ku }kjk fd, tkus okys dk;Z dh izd`fr ;g gS fd fdlh ifj;kstuk dk dk;ZHkkj laHkky ysus ds i‘pkr~ os ns‘k ds fofHkUu Hkkxksa esa [kfut [kktus dk dk;Z djrs gSaA 1995&1996 dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj] fuxe ds ikl 50 ifj;kstuk,¡ FkhaA fuxe LFkk;h gS vkSj og ;g dk;Z fujarj djrk jgk gSA tc ,d ifj;kstuk iwjh gks tkrh gS] rc ,d vU; ifj;kstuk esa dk;Z izkjaHk gks tkrk gSA ,slk izrhr ugha gksrk fd fu;e dk dk;Z lekIr gksxkA ¼iSjk 32
ftuus vusd o"kZ dk;Z fd;k gS] ,sls deZdkjksa dh lsok fu;fer dh tkuk leqfpr gksxkA rFkkfi] lQy gksus ds fy, deZdkjksa dks viuk nkok fof/k LFkkfir fl)karksa ds vuqlkj fl) djuk gksxkA ge vf/kdj.k dks fuEufyf[kr funs‘k tkjh fd, tkuk U;k;ksfpr vkSj leqfpr le>rs gSa ftls nksuksa i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk volj ns dj fuEufyf[kr funs‘kksa ij fopkj dj ds leqfpr vkns‘k ikfjr djus dk funs‘k fn;k tkrk gS %
1- vf/kdj.k dks funs‘k fn;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZ&la?k }kjk vkSj izca/ku }kjk Hkh vc rd izLrqr leLr vfHkys[kksa dh iqu% laoh{kk djus rFkk leLr i{kksa ls foospu vkSj fopkj&foe‘kZ dj ds varr% fu;ferhdj.k ds izR;sd nkosnkj dh vlfy;r vkSj izekf.kdrk ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ fudkysxkA bldk ikyu] ;g fu.kZ; izkIr gksus ds ukS ekl ds Hkhrj fd;k tk,xkA
2- vf/kfu.kZ; dh u, fljs ls tk¡p ds ifj.kke ds v/;/khu] fuxe mudks LFkk;h :i ls vkesfyr djsxk vkSj mudh lsok fu;fer djsxk] bl izdkj fu;qDr O;fDr ml dk;Z dh ek=k rd lhfer jgsaxs tks mu dks ckjgeklh vk/kkj ij izkIr gksxkA
3- izR;FkhZ&fuxe LFkk;h vk/kkj ij dsoy mudks vkesfyr djsxk ftuus vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q iwjh ugha dh gSA
4- izR;FkhZ&fuxe }kjk ,sls deZdkjksa dks LFkk;h vk/kkj ij vkesfyr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gS tks ,sls fu;kstu ds fy, fpfdRldh; :i ls vuqi;qDr gSaA
5- fuxe }kjk ik= deZdkjksa dks fu;fer vkSj LFkk;h vk/kkj ij vkesfyr fd, tkus ls mldh viuh vko‘;drkvksa ds fy, fdlh Hkh ‘kkjhfjd dk;Z ds fy, mudh lsok dk mi;ksx djus ds fy, fuxe v‘kDr ugha gksxkA
6- vkesyu ds ekeys esa ,sls O;fDr;ksa dks ftuus vkdfLed deZdkj rnFkZ@vLFkk;h dh Hkk¡fr vf/kd vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k gS] muls vf/keku fn;k tk,xk tks dk;Z esa de le; jgs gSaA
7- deZdkj }kjk o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gksuk pkfg,A deZdkj dk vkpj.k vkSj O;ogkj vPNk gksuk pkfg,A ts Vh 2006¼4½ ,l lh 154 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 39
1. The appellant before us is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union (AITUC) through its General Secretary, respondent No.1 is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman and Managing Director, Seminari Hills, Nagpur and the second respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
2. The appellant-Union preferred the above appeals against the common judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed Writ Petition No.1981 of 1998 filed by respondent No.1 (Corporation) and dismissed Writ Petition No.5423 of 1998 filed by the Union and has set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.3.1998.
3. The appellant is a registered Trade Union affiliated to AITUC. Respondent No.1 (Corporation) is a Public Sector Undertaking managed and controlled by the Ministry of Mines and is engaged in the exploration/discovery of mineral prospects/resources for rapid industrial growth in the country. Respondent No.1 is having various projects allover the country including their branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has employed approx. 5,000 employees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work in the projects.
4. According to the Union, the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" have completed minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they were not regularized nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales. Consequently, the workmen started demanding regular pay scales and their regularization in service. On the other hand, the Corporation resorted to retrenchment of workmen which caused serious industrial unrest and ultimately the Union took up the matter and held discussions with the Corporation.
5. Since the discussion failed, an industrial dispute was raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Nagpur who held various conciliation meeting with both the parties. Even the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, in exercise of powers vested in him under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitted a failure report to the Ministry of Labour, who in turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur vide order dated 7.1.1993. The question referred to the Tribunal reads thus :
"Whether the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S/Shri A.K. Janson 2144 others (as per Annexure 'A' attached) and depriving them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date?
AND
Whether the action of the management of MECL, Nagpur in not providing employment to Smt. Surya Gayee and 63 others (as per Annexure-B attached) as the legal heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds is justified? If not, to what relief are they entitled to and from what date?"
6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both the parties and considering the arguments, vide its award dated 24.3.1998, held that all the workmen in dispute, whose names have been shown in Annexure "A", i.e., 2145 workmen, be regularized in the services of respondent No.1 within a period of three months and further held that the workmen were entitled for regular pay scales, increments, dearness allowance, leave facility from the date of publication of the award. The Tribunal, however, did not award the regularization and regular pay scales from the date of the order of reference. The Tribunal answered the issue in relation to the appointments of heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, in favour of the Union and thus issued consequential dir
