Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regularisation – Entitlement of – Names called from employment exchange to fill up sanctioned posts by respondent – Interview conducted – Issuance of appointment order as per inter se merit of available candidate – Thereafter, demand of regular appointment to term based employees appointed by appellant-Union – Industrial dispute – Tribunal directed regularisation of some of these workmen – Appellant-Union filed civil application that the Tribunal had not granted appointment to the workmen with effect from the date on which they had been initially appointed and/or from the date on which they completed probation – Single Judge of the High Court directed the respondent Corporation to treat the concerned workmen on regular employment with effect from the date the four year term comes to an end or the date of first reissuance of appointment order as the case may be – Letters Patent Appeals, filed thereagainst, dismissed by the Division Bench – Issue as regards the date to treat the concerned workmen to be on regular appointment – Held: Corporation must treat the concerned workmen who have been regularized earlier to be in regular employment on and from the date on which the industrial dispute was referred and grant all actual benefits from the said date till the date of decision by Single Judge of the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: On facts in the instant case, as soon as the four year period got over, the employees collectively through their Union approached the Central Government and the Central Government in exercise of its powers under the Industrial Disputes Act referred an industrial dispute immediately on 21.12.2004. This dispute was ultimately answered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal many years later only on 08.11.2011. On the facts of this case, therefore, the Corporation must treat the concerned workmen which includes 111 out of these 577 employees who have been regularized earlier, to be in regular employment on and from the date on which the industrial dispute was referred i.e. 21.12.2004 and accordingly grant all actual benefits from the said date till 01.04.2013. The other directions that have been given by the Single Judge will remain intact. [Para 14][969-A-C]
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others (2015) 6 SCC 494; Surendra Kumar and Others v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others (2015) 14 SCC 382 – distinguished.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1;
Divisional Manager, A.P. SRTC and Others v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Others, (2004) 2 SC 433 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.