Holding

Long‑serving contingent workers cannot be treated as temporary or casual and are entitled to regularisation and regular pay‑scales; the High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal’s award.

Summary

The Mineral Exploration Corporation (MECL) employed a large number of workers on so‑called contingent or temporary contracts for projects that lasted many years. The workers, who had served between eight and twenty years, claimed regularisation and regular pay‑scales under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal awarded them regularisation (but not retrospectively) and related benefits. The High Court set aside the award and dismissed the union’s writ petition, prompting a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Court held that workers who have been engaged for such long periods cannot be classified as temporary or casual under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, and are therefore entitled to regularisation and regular pay‑scales. The High Court’s interference was deemed erroneous, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal with specific directions to re‑examine the claims and regularise eligible workmen within nine months, while the interim order of 3 May 1999 remains in force.

Issues considered

The legal status of long‑serving contingent/temporary workers under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Industrial Tribunal’s award of regularisation and pay‑scale benefits.
Whether the corporation is obligated to regularise such workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and relevant case law.
The entitlement of dependents of deceased employees to compassionate appointments.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 12, s. 25(T), s. 25(U)
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

Subjects

regularisationcontingent workerstemporary employmentindustrial disputeIndustrial Disputes ActIndustrial Employment Standing Orders Actunfair labour practicecompassionate appointmentpublic sector undertaking

Judgment

MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION A
v.
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR.

JULY 26, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Employment Standing Orders
Act, 1946-Respondent-Corporation engaged in exploration of mineral
resources having various projects all over the country-Workmen making C
claim for regularization and regular pay scale on the ground of having worked
for several years-Corporation resorting to large scale retrenchment-
lndustrial dispute-Tribunal held that workmen are entitled to regularization
and regular pay scales.,--Writ Petition by Corporation-Allowed by High
Court-On appeal, Held: Respondent corporation is a big industry having
many projects employing hundreds o.f workmen on temporary basis working D
for several years-Their services cannot be arbitrarily terminated by way of
retrenchment giving rise to industrial unrest-Directions issued to Tribunal to
favourably consider the case of workmen.

The Respondent-Corporation has been engaged in the exploration
of mineral resources, having various projects all over the country. The E
workmen engaged in respondent-Corporation made claims for
regularization of their services and demand for regular wages as per the
revision of pay scales on the ground that they had completed minimum 8
years and maximum 20 years of service. Corporation, however, resorted
to retrenchment of workmen which resulted in industrial unrest, giving F
rise to industrial dispute. Labour Commissioner referred the matter on
7.1.1993 to the Industrial Tribunal. Tribunal .held that all the workmen
in dispute are entitled for regularization and for regular pay scales, DA,
increments, leave facility from the date of publication of award. The award
was published on 13.4.1998. The Corporation challenged the award by
filing Writ Petition. Employee-Union also preferred Writ petition G
J challenging the award to the extent the tribunal refused the relief of
regular pay scales and regularization of the workmen from the date of
reference. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the Corporation
and dismissed the Writ Petition of Employee-Union and set aside the award
87 H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A passed by the Tribunal in entirety. Hence these appeals by Employee-
Union.

During pendency, on 3.5.1999, this Court passed interim order
directing the Corporation to provide work to the members of the Union
as casual employees provided there is availability of work and willingness
B of employees to go to the places where the work is available.

Disposing of the appeals and issuing certain directions to the
Tribunal, the Court

HELD: I. According to the report of the ye;.r 1995-1996, the
C 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 would come to an end. The Annual Report was considered
by the Tribunal. It appears from the Annual Report and the Magazine of
D the Corporation that the Corporation has sufficient work and the financial
condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory. Ample material was
placed to show that the temporary/contingent employees have been doing
the work of permanent nature and the temporary employees are required
to do work which was used to be done by skilled employees.
1101-G-H; 102-A-BJ
E
2. The Respondent-Corporation is an industry governed by the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the provisions of the
Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. The Standing Orders
define temporary employee as one who has been engaged for work which
is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a limited
F period and a casual workman as one whose employment is of casual
labour. Therefore, the employees engaged and continued for years together
cannot be termed as temporary or casuals. 1102-C-EJ

3.1. The respondent-Corporation itself effected transfer of employees
from one project to another and granted them benefit e.g. T.A., D.A. etc.
G The term contingent employee is totally unknown to Industrial Law. To
deny the benefits available to regular employees, certain employees are
termed as contingent workers. Once an employee completes 240 days, he
is deemed to be a permanent employee. The term contingent employee is
not included in Standing Orders. 1102-E-GJ

H 3.2. Usual practice of the Corporation has been to keep contingent
·-
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION•·. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LTD [LAKSHMANAN, J] 89

workmen for long duration of time and offering regular appointment A
periodically which abruptly had stopped due to unfair attitude of the
Management. Reduction in work !;!ading to poor physical and financial
performance has been a result of incompetent and poor Management
which cannot be allowed to play with the future of thousands of employees
and their families. (102-G-H)
B
4. The present reference was made in January, 1993. The employees
working in the Corporation, used to do work far away from civilization
and facilities and they did not get amenities with regard to the health and
residence although such facilities are available to the permanent workmen
doing similar work. The workmen lived away from their families while C
working on a project and faced all types of hardships. 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. ( 102-H; 103-A-B]

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi, 3 & Ors., (2006) 4 D
sec 1, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2027-2028
of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order and dated 26.2.1999 of the High Court E
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423/J 998.

V.A. Bobde, K.P. Viswanathan, Satyajit Saha and V.D. Khanna for the
Appellant.

V.R. Reddy, T.G. Narayanan Nair and Sunil Murarka for the F
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The appellant before us is the Mineral
Exploration Corporation Employees' Union (AITUC) through its General G
Secretary, Respondent No. I is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
though 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.

The appellant-Union preferred the above appeals against the common H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 of the High Coult of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur in Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the High
Coult allowed Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1998 filed by respondent No. I
(Corporation) and dismissed Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 fikd by the
Union and has set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated
B 24.3 .1998.
The appellant is a registered Trade Union affiliated to AITUC.
Respondent No. I (Corporation) is a Public Sector Undeltaking 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.
C Respondent No. I is having various projects all over the country including
their branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has employed approx.
5000 employees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work
in the projects.

According to the Union. the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration
D 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 stalted demanding regular pay scales and their
regularization in service. On the other hand. the Corporation re5orted to
retrenchment of workmen which caused serious industrial unrest and ultimately
E tht: Union took up the matter and held discussions with the Corporation.

Since the discussion faikd, 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 meetings
F with both the palties. Even the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus the
Regional Labour Commissioner. Nagpur, in exercise of powers vested in him
under Section 12 of the lndustri2l Disputes Act, l 947, submitted a failure
repolt 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. l.1993. The question referred to the Tribunal reads thus:
G
"'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 Anncxures A' attached) and depriving
them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is justified 9 If not, to
-
H
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what
date?
...
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION r. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LlD. [LAKSllMANAN, J J 9}

AND A
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?" B
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. I within a
period of three months and further held that the workmen were entitled for C
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 D
the Union and thus issued consequential directions to the respondent-
Corporation in that behalf. The award was published on 13.4.1998.

The Corporation preferred writ petition before the High Comt being
Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1998 challenging the Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal. The Union also preferred Writ Petition before the High Court being E
Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 challenging the Award dated 24.3.1998 to the
extent the Tribunal refused the relief of regular pay scales and regularization
of the workmen from the date of reference i.e., 7.1.1993.

Both the writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge
of the High Court. The arguments were concluded on 24.11.1998 and after F
the conclusion of oral arguments; both the parties filed their written statements
before the High Court. However, according to the Union, special issues raised
by the Union and the material relied upon in support of the contentions have
not been adverted to in the impugned judgment, presumably because the
judgment was delivered after some gap of time, which has caused serious G
miscarriage of justice.

The learned single Judge of the High Court, by a common judgment
and order, disposed off both the writ petitions together. The High Court
allowed the writ petition filed by the Corporation and set aside the Award
passed by the Tribunal in entirety. The High Court affirmed the findings of H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal on material issues. but. reversed the Award and dismissed the
writ petition preferred by the Union.

Aggrieved by the same, the Union has preferred the above appeals by
way of special leave petitions before this Court. During the pendency of the
special leave petitions, this Court on 3.5.1999, passed an interim order directing
B the Corporation to provide work to the members of the Union as casual
employees provided there is work available and if the members of the Union
are willing to go to the places where the work is available. On 18.1.2006, this
Court directed to call these appeals after the disposal of Civil Appeal Nos.
3595-3612 of 1999 which have been heard by the Constitution Benc!i. The
C Constitution Bench delivered the judgment on 10.4.2006. Now these appeals
are placed before us for final hearing.

We heard Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K.P.
Viswanathan, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-Union and Mr.
V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.G.N. Nair, learned
D counsel. appearing for the respondents.

Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Union
submitted that the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, can not interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, that too without recording any cogent
E finding and in the absence of any material to show that the Award passed by
the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or error apparent on the face of the
record. Though several other grounds have been raised in the appeals, Mr.
V.A. Bobde, at the time of hearing, confined the arguments only on two
issues. He submitted that the High Court was not right in reversing the
F Award of the Tribunal even on the question of compassionate appointments
notwithstanding the clinching material on record placed before the Tribunal
which goes to show that the respondent-Corporation had framed a policy for
appointments to be made on compassionate grounds coupled with the fact
that commensurate posts were also available and, therefore, it was bound to
implement its own policy indiscriminately. He also submitted that the question
G of non-regularisation of contingent workmen, when each of them has worked
for minimum of 8 years and maximum of20 years, does not have the inevitable
effect of commission of unfair labour practice which is prohibited within the
purport of Sections 25(T) and 25(U) and that the conclusion reached by the
High Court for reversing the Award of the Tribunal on question of
H regularisation is contrary to the overwhelming evidence adduced on record
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION''· MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 93

before the Tribunal and the sound reasoning adopted by the Tribunal for A
granting the said relief to the workmen. He also submitted that the completion
of project by respondent No. I was inconsequential in view of the established
fact that even after the completion of project, contingent workmen were
continued in service upon their absorption/continuation in other projects as
and when the same was commenced. He further contended that it is obligatory B
on the respondent-Corporation to regularise the contingent workmen who
have completed minimum 8 years of service and maximum 20 years of
service.

Mr. V.A. Bobde contended that the Courts below have totally ignored
the evidence of the workers in which they have categorically stated that they C
are serving with the responder.t-Corporation since last so many years and,
therefore, the workers are entitled for regularisation and regular pay scales.
He invited our attention to the finding of the Tribunal that all the workers
were working in the respondent-Corporation since last so many years and the
Tribunal has further held that the workers are entitled for regularisation,
therefore, there was no justification for denying their claim for regularisation D
and regular pay scales from the date of the order of reference i.e. 7.1. I993.
It was further submitted that the workers have been transferred from one
project to the other and they have been given up-gradation, also provident
fund contribution have also been deducted from their salaries. As a matter of
fact, for all the purposes, workers have been treated as regular employees of E
the respondent-Corporation, but while making the award, they have been
denied the benefits of regularisation and pay scales from retrospective date
or at least from the date of order of reference, without any cogent reasons.
Likewise, the learned single Judge committed a serious error in interfering
with the award relating to compassionate appointment. Paragraph 21 of the
judgment was brought to our notice. The conclusion of the learned single F
Judge is completely vitiated on account of non-consideration of the material
on record. In paragraph 21, the learned single Judge set aside the award only
on the ground that no decision of the employer was brought to the notice of
the learned single Judge for providing appointment on compassionate grounds.

In this connection, Mr. V.A. Bobde, referred to the counter affidavit G
filed in reply to the writ petition before the learned single Judge in which the
whole set-up policy framed by the Corporation along with the correspondence
of the Management were placed on record as part of the counter affidavit and
specific attention of the learned single Judge, at the time of argument to the
said Rule for compassionate appointment, was drawn. The same, however, H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A seems to have been completely missed by the learned single Judge.
Our attention was also drawn to the Scheme for providing suitable
employment to persons on compassionate grounds. The Scheme is available
at page 205 of Vol. II of the appeal paper book. The Object of the Scheme
shall be to give employment to a member of the family ofa deceased employee
B as a welfare measure. The Scheme says that one dependent of the deceased
employee in whose case these rules are applicable shall 9e entitled for
consideration of the employment in the following orders of precedence:

(i) Wife or husband as the case ma} be

c (ii) Son

(iii) Unmarried daughter
(iv) Mother or Father
(v) Brother

D (vi) Unmarried sister

Note : In case of more than one claimant in the same category, the
senior most person in that category will be given precedence.

At the time of hearing. our attention was drawn to the judgment deltvered
E by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnata/..u & Ors. v. Umadevi, 3 and Ors., [2006] 4 SCC I. The said case
deals with public employment, absorption, regularization, or permanent
continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees
appointed/recruited and continued for I0ng in public employment de hors the
constitutional scheme of public employment. Our attention was specifically
F drawn to paragraph 53 of the said judgment authored by Hon. P.K.
Balasubramanian, J. for the Bench, which reads thus:

"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V.
IVarayanappa [1967] I SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa [1972] 2 SCR
G 799, and B.N. Nagarajan [ 1979] 3 SCR 937, and referred to in
paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued
to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders
of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the
H services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION o·. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J J 95

the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above A
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts B
or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any
already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this C
judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those
not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

It is seen from the above paragraph that this Court directed the Union
of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to regularize as a D
one-lime measure, the services of such irregularly appointed workmen, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaking to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers
are being now employed.
E

Placing strong reliance on the above passage, Mr. V.A. Bobde submitted
that the respondent-Corporation should be directed to take steps to regularize
the services of the members of the appellant-Union who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts. He further submitted that in view of p
the verdict of the Constitutional Bench, the respondent-Corporation is duty
bound to consider the case of the members of the appellant-Union who satisfy
the test prescribed in paragraph 53 of the above judgment.

Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondent first invited
our attention to the various documents relied on by the Corporation. He drew G
our attention to the Appointment Order. A model Form of Appointment
Order reads as under:
"TEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF MINERAL
EXPLORATION CORPORATION AT _ _ _ _ _ _ PROJECT
H'
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006! SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A APPOINTMENT ORDER
Shri S/o ______________ is hereby offered a
temporary appointment on contingent/temporary basis @ Rs .. ____ _
per day for unskilled nature of job in the temporary industrial
establishment at _______ , project on the following terms and
B conditions:

(i) The appointment will be purely on contingent/temporary basis
and the contract of employment will terminate on ____ _
or completion of work whichever is earlier. The contract of
employment can be renewed for a further specific period, if
C deemed fit as per exigencies of work, by issue of a specific
order.
(ii) The appointee will have to perform any of the jobs of unskilled
category which may be assigned to him from time to time.
If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to Shri
D __ , he should send his acceptance in the enclosed
proforma and report on duty immediately.

PROJECT MANAGER"

E Relying upon the above appointment order, Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted
that the appointments were purely on contingent/temporary basis and the
contract of employment will terminate on the completion of the project work
and, therefore, they are not entitled for regularization. He invited our attention
to the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.9.1979 in the Chamber of the
F Chairman-cum-Managing Director between Management of MECL and MEC
Employees Union and the decision taken on regularization. .. -

The relevant paragraph reads as under:

"Regularization

G Regarding regularization, a committee was appointed duly to assess
jobs of continuous nature on which the representatives of the MECEU
were also represented. The report of this committee has been received,
recently. and its recommendations will be put up to the Board of
Directors in its next meeting. Every efforts will be made to obtain the
H permission of the Director General. Employment & training to fill the
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP UNION"· MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LTD. [LAKSHMANAN,J.] 97

vacancies, which will thus be available, out of the contingent workmen A
based on their seniority and their sustainability. The work of
regularization of such contingent workers will be completed within a
period of four months from the date of the approval of the Board of
Directors."

He drew our attention to the Abstract of Standing Order which deals B
with permanent employees and contingent/temporary workmen and the
probationers etc. Our attention was drawn to clause (b) of paragraph l of the
Standing Order which defines a "contingent/temporary" workman as one
who has been engaged on work which is of an essentially temporary nature
likely to be finished within a limited period. C
Mr. V.R. Reddy invited our attention to the affidavit dated 12.5.2006.
filed on behalf of the Corporation. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads as
·under:

"In compliance of the directions of this Court the respondent D
Corporation has been inviting the ex-contingent workmen for engaging
:hem whenever work was available and the respondent is continuing
to do so. For this purpose the respondent Corporation has been issuing
notices through publications in the Newspapers and also by furnishing
the necessary information to the petitioner Union for the benefit of
the workers. E
But in spite of the wide publicity given in this matter incurring
heavy expenses, the response from the workmen was very scant as
only very few persons were willing to work at places where work
was available. A statement containing the details of projects where
the temporary nature of work arose and the number of workmen F
required and the publications made in the Newspapers regarding the
said work is annexed as annexure-R l(A)."

He further submitted that since the Constitution Bench has pronounced
the judgment on 10.4.2006, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench and hence these G
appeals are liable to be dismissed.

He also relied on paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench which reads as under:

"In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006! SllPP. 4 S.C.R.

A sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons.
in posts which are temporary. on daily wages. as additional hands or
taking them in without following the required procedure. to discharge
the duties in r~spect of the posts that are sanctioned and that arc
required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by
B the Constitution or for work in temporary posts or projects that are
not needed permanently. This right of the Union or of the State
Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the
Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or
on daily wages. to meet the needs of the situation. But the fact that
such engagements are resorted to. cannot be used to defeat the very
c scheme of public employment. Nor can a court say that the Union or
the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in
various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular
project is completed. Once this right of the Government is recognized
and the mandate of the constitutional requirement for public
employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming
D
to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts whether
acting under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of
the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of
those who have been engaged without following a due process of
selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme."
E
Placing strong reliance on the above paragraph, Mr. V.R. Reddy
submitted that Courts whether acting under Art. 226 of the Constitution or
under Art. 32 of the Constitution, can direct the absorption in permanent
employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process
of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme, cannot at all be
F countenanced.
... -
Mr. V. R. Reddy submitted that the Corporation was established in the
year 1972 and has been engaged in exploration of min era I resources of the
country and for this purpose they engaged workmen and that the activities of
G the Corporation carried on at various places from time to time and the project
established for this work are of temporary nature and as soon as the work is
over. the establishment stands closed. It was further argued that the work
extracted by the respondent-Corporation is primarily on behalf of the
Government of India and other Public Sector Undertakings of Central and
State Government and the respondent-Corporation has no work of its own
H except the work that is assigned to them by various organizations. And that

-
MeJERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. E~1P. UNION r. MINERAL EXPLORATIONCORPN. LTD. [LAKSllMANAN.J.] 99

after the exploration work is carried out by the Corporation, further A
development and project work is taken over by the Government or Government
company concerned and the duties and responsibilities of the Corporation
end with the submission of the detailed exploration report that may be used
by the development agency. He further submitted that the persons employed
in the project/temporary establishment are employed mainly for the said project B
temporarily on contingent/temporary basis and their contract of employment
will terminate/come to an end on completion of the project work and that the
Corporation has specifically instructed all concerned that all appointments
has to be made purely on contingent/temporary basis duly accepted by the
Head Office and appointment is made on such terms. Arguing further, Mr.
V.R. Reddy submitted that it is the usual practice of the Corporation to C
employ persons temporarily for project concerned and as soon as the project
comes to an end, their services will automatically come to an end. He also
invited our attention to the I39th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on
31.12.1998 and the decision taken thereon. Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted that
the question of compassionate appointment does not arise because the
answering respondent has no post available, neither they have financial D
resources to employ them. Concluding his arguments, Mr. V.R. Reddy
submitted that the award of the Tribunal is not oniy perverse but without
considering material facts and considering irrelevant and impermissible matter
and the High Court had correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and
this Court should ensure that the Tribunal acts within its jurisdiction and in E
accordance with law. He further submitted that the High Court has not
committed any error of jurisdiction in interfering with the award and, therefore,
no interference is called for.

Mr. V.A. Bobde. learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-
Union, at the time of reply to the arguments made by Mr. V.R. Reddy, F
learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, invited our attention to some
documents which are relevant for the purpose of considering the claim of
regularization of the workmen. He invited our attention to proceeding No.2
(76)/Pers dated 9.8.1990 which shows that one Tika Ram Mahato was
interviewed for the post of D.T. IV. Candidates were requested for written G
test/personal interview at the Corporation's office at Ranchi along with the
documents in original and photostat copies thereof etc. Another proceeding
of the same date was also for an interview for the post of D.T. IV. As a
sample, he drew our attention to the statement of E.P.F. Account for the year
1982-83 of Tika Ram Mahato which furnishes the details of the member's
contribution for the E.P.F. account. A sample wage slip was also brought to H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A our notice. It relates to the employee, Tika Ram Mahato mentioning the
details in regard to the wages, rates of wages payable, gross wages payable,
deduction, if any, and actual wages paid. This document contains the signature
of the employee and also of the Project Manager uf the Corporation. Our
attention was also drawn to the Release Order dated 13.10.1990 by the
Corporation. Certain skilled workers were released from Ardhagram Project
B to R. East project which contains the leave details of the workmen. The
Assistant Manager. Area-Ill Calcutta was requested to remit the fund for
Muster roll to the Project Manager, MECL R. East, Project for the above
contingent workers and that the Senior Material Officer, MECL Calcutta was
requested to send their shoes, Rain Coat and Gumboot etc. to R.East Project. .
-

C The said Release Order further stated that the daily wages of the workmen
have been paid up to I0.10.1990 and that the festival advance has been given
to the persons (whose names have been mentioned in the Release Order) in
the month of September, 1990 and no deduction has been made from their
salary. Another Office Order bearing No. 441/3:29/ADM/Cal-08 dated
22.4.1988 was brought to our notice which says that in terms of the Central
D Headquarters, Nagpur, Office Order No. 31/CIPers/CAD.79 dated 17.6.85,
the following contingent workers of Calcutta area who have completed four
years of continuous service in the present wage scale have been re-categorised
to the next higher wage scale w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and that the wages on re-
categorisation will be fixed under normal Rules. This Office Order was issued
E with the approval of the Area Manager, Calcutta. The said Office Order gives
the names of 15 skilled workers and date from which they are due to be re-
categorised and the wage scale in which area they are placed and the name
of the Project etc. Certain sample orders were also placed before us at the
time of hearing. One sample order is issued by the Mineral Exploration
Corporation Ltd. (a Government of India Enterprise) for Kanhan Project
F dated 5.1.1984 by which two skilled operators and one un-skilled worker was
transferred from Damua to Tansi etc. The transfer of one K.G. Simon, unskilled
worker was made on request and no separate accommodation will be provided
to him in the camp Tandsi.

Mr. V.A. Bobde also placed before us few appointment orders available
G at pages 247, 248 and 249 of Vol.II of appeal paper book. The appointment
orders state that the appointment will be purely on contingent/temporary
basis and the contract of employment will terminate on 19.4.1988 or
completion of work whichever is earlier. The contract of employment can be
renewed for a further specific period, if deemed fit as per exigencies of work,
H by issue of a specific order and that the appointee will have to perform any
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION"· MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. LTD. [LAKSHMANAN.J.)] Q]

of the jobs or skilled/unskilled category which may be assigned to them from A
time to time.

It is stated in the appointment order dated 3. 7.1985 that the services of
Shri Nand Kishore s/o Sh. Shyam Lal in the Corporation, Bikaner Lignite
Project are purely temporary and his term of service is up to project life or
till such time he is replaced by Regular/Pre'79 workers or any communication, B
on the subject, received from CHQ whichever is earlier.

We may also usefully refer to the findings rendered by the Tribunal on
the basis of the facts analysed from several affidavits filed before it, which
are as under:
c
"(A) The Temporary employees have been working in Corporation
for many years. Even some employees have still been working since
the year 1979.

(B) Those employees were transferred from one place to another
during that period. D
(C) The temporary employees were promoted.
(D) Regular pay scale was not given to those temporary employees,
but they were given salary equal to daily wagers.
(E) Those temporary employees are not been given other allowances E
and facilities of leave.
(F) The amount of Provident Fund was deducted from the salary of
those temporary employees.
(G) The posts, on which temporary employees were kept, were given
different names by the Management. F
(H) Old temporary employees are removed from services without
giving any notice or without paying any compensation.
(I) Those employees are not given increments."

It is thus seen that the nature of work done by the Management is that G
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 H
102 SUPREME l'Ol!RT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A would come to an end.
Ample material was placed before us to show that the temporary:
contingent employees have been doing the work of permanent nature and the
temporary employees are n:quired to do work which was used to be done by
skilkJ employees. The Annual Report of the Corporation for the year 1995-
B 96 was also considered by the Tribunal. It appears from the Annual Report
and the Magaz.ine of the Corporation that the Corporation has sufficient work
and the tinancial condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory.

The Respondent is an industry governed by the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the provisions of the Industrial Employment
C Standing Orders Act, 1946. The Standing Orders defined temporary and casual
employees as under:-

A "TEMPORARY" WORKMAN IS A WORKMAN WHO HAS
BEEN ENGAGED FOR WORK WHICH IS OF AN ESSENTIALLY
TEMPORARY NATURE LIKELY TO BE FINISHED WITHIN A
D
LIMITED PERIOD'

'A "CASUAL" WORKMAN IS A WOKRMAN WHOSE
EMPLOYMENT IS OF CASUAL LABOUR'

Therefore, it will be clear that. the employees engaged and continued
E for years together cannot be termed as temporary or casuals.

The respondent-management it'ielf effected transfer of employees from
one project to another and granted them benefit e.g. T.A., D.A. etc. The term
contingent employee is totally unknown to Industrial Law. To deny the benefits
F available to regular employees, certain employees are termed as contingent
workers. Once an employee completes 240 days. he is deemed to be a
permanent employee. The term contingent employee is not included in
Standing Orders.

Usual practice of the Corporation has been to keep contingent workmen
G for long duration of time and offering regular appointment periodically which
abruptly had stopped due to unfair attitude of the Management. Reduction in
work leading to poor physical and financial performance has been a result of
incompetent and poor Management which cannot be allowed to play with the
fi.iture of thousands of employees and their families.

H !"he pres~nt reference was made in January. 1993. The employees
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPN. EMP. UNION" MINERAL EXPLORA TlON CORPN. LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, l) j 03

working in the Corporation, it was submitted, used to do work far away from A
civilization and facilities and they did not get amenities with regard to the
health and residence although such facilities are available to the permanent
workmen doing similar work. The workmen lived away from their families
while working on a project and faced all types of hardships.

It shall be proper to regularize the services of the workmen who have worked B
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: C
I. 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 D
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 penmmently and
regularize their services, the persons to be so appointed being E
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. F
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
G
.. pennanent 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
A H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A shall be preferred to those who have to be iri shorter period
of work.

7. The workman should have worked for more than 240 days
in a year. The conduct and behaviour of the workman should
be good.
B
We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the claim of the workmen
of the Union strictly in accordance with and in compliance with all the
directions given in the judgment by the Constitution Bench in the case of
Secretary, State of Karna/aka & Ors. v. Umadevi(3) & Ors., (supra) and in
particular, paragraphs 53 and 12 relied on by the learned senior counsel
C appearing for the Union. The Tribunal is directed to dispose off the matter
afresh within 9 months from the date of receipt of th is judgment without
being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this judgment.
Both the parties are at liberty to submit and furnish the details in regard to
the names of the workmen, nature of the work, pay scales and the wages
D drawn by them from time to time and the transfers of the workrr.en made
from time to time, from place to place and other necessary and requisite
details. The above details shall be submitted within two months from the date
of the receipt of this judgment before the Tribunal.

Till the matter is finally adjudicated by the Tribunal, the interim order
E passed by this Court on 3.5.1999 shall be in operation.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeals are disposed of. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.

D.G. Appeals disposed of .

...

.....