Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 120

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Gopal & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016, 934-939, 669-696 of 2020 (SLP(C) Nos. 10478-10480 of 2016, 30854-30855 of 2017, 16455 of 2018, 15971-15998 of 2018)
Decided On : 07-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. Ms. Nina Gupta, Adv. Ms. Palak Chadha, Adv. Ms. Ruchika Joshi, Adv. Mr. Mudit Sharma, AOR Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.N. Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Shruta Gopalan, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. V.N. Koura, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Shirish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Paramjeet Benipal, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv. Mr. V. Siddharth, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Asha Jain Madan, AOR Mr. Mukesh Jain, AOR Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv. Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.N. Subramanian, Adv. Ms. Shruta Gopalan, Adv. Mr. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Adv. Mr. Ganesan Subbian, Adv. Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. V.N. Koura, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Shirish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Paramjeet Benipal, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. For M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co Mr. Ayush Negi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv.

Headnote:
(a) Labour law - Regularisation - Clause 2(ii), Standing Orders - Workers completing 240 days in a calendar year - “May be considered for conversion as regular employee” - PCLU holding that this clause gives a statutory right to workers for regularization - Decision against express language of the provision - Also not considering constitution Bench judgment in Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and other judgments - PCLU needs reconsideration. (Para 17)
(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Item 10, Schedule V r/w section 2(ra) and 25(T) - Unfair labour practices - Engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen - Constitutes unfair labour practice. (Para 23)
(c) Labour law - Regularisation - Applicability of Uma Devi to industrial workers - Labour forums cannot order regularization which would offend Article 14, Constitution of India - Relief to workmen including status of permanency can be granted in case of unfair labour practice by employer - Granting regularization in absence of posts impermissible - Courts cannot create posts - Employer cannot discriminate between workers in matter of regularization. (Para 23)
(d) Interpretation of judgment - Reconsideration - PCLU requiring reconsideration for its interpretation of clause 2(ii) of Certified Standing Orders; unfair labour practice and limitations on power of labour forums to order regularization in absence of sanctioned posts. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
This batch of appeals arises from the judgments of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Madras and Uttarakhand. Relying on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Petroleum Coal Labour Union, (2015) 6 SCC 494 the High Courts have come to the conclusion that the workmen were entitled to regularisation in service.
Finding of the Court:
PCLU needs reconsideration.
Result: Matter referred to larger Bench.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. This batch of appeals arises from the judgments of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Madras and Uttarakhand. A judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Petroleum Coal Labour Union, (2015) 6 SCC 494 (“PCLU”) has assumed focus since the decisions of the High Courts in four of the present appeals have relied on the judgment of this Court in coming to the conclusion that the workmen were entitled to regularisation in service. In one of the five appeals, however where the prayer for regularisation was rejected, the decision in PCLU has been distinguished. Hence on either end of the spectrum, the judgment in PCLU has a significant bearing on the outcome of the appeals.

2. The manner in which the present appeals arise is indicated, for convenience of reference, in the following tabulation:

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Remarks
1	Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 15971-15998/2018 ONGC & Ors. v ONGC Field Operators Union & Ors.	The appeals arise out of a judgment dated 5 January 2018 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 24 Writ Appeals and 4 Writ Petitions. The High Court directed regularisation of 450 workmen who moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without seeking a reference before the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(“ID Act”). The judgment of the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in PCLU (supra).
2	Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 4/2016 Renumbered as C.A. 1878/2016 ONGC v Krishan Gopal & Ors.	The appeal arises out of a judgment dated 12 December 2015 of the High Court of Delhi. Allowing a Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court directed regularisation of 24 workmen who had instituted proceedings under Article 226 without seeking a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in PCLU (supra).
3	Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 10478/2016 M Rajan & Ors. v	The appeal arises from a judgment of the Madras High Court dated 20 November 2015 in Writ Appeals. The High Court ONGC & Ors. rejected the prayer for regularisation made by the workmen who had instituted proceedings under Article 226. The High Court held that the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 could not be bypassed. The High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in PCLU (supra).
4	Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 30854/2017 ONGC v Tel AVM Prakartik Gas Karmchari Sangh	The appeal arises from a decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 3 August 2017 in writ proceedings under Article 226, as a consequence of which, nine workmen have been directed to be regularised. The High Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal which had held in favour of ONGC, the employer. The High Court relied on the decisions of this Court in PCLU and in State of Haryana v Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 (“Piara Singh”). (The decision in Piara Singh has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1).
5	Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 16455/2018 The Management of ONGC v Petroleum Employees Union	The appeal arises from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 29 January 2018 by which the services of fourteen messengers and three sanitary cleaners have been regularised by the High Court. The award of the Industrial Tribunal has been set aside. The High Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in PCLU (supra).

3. In the appeals which are listed out at serial Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the table, ONGC, as the appellant seeks to challenge the judgments of the High Courts directing or, as the case may be, up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 120

Cases Referred (11)