Calcutta High Court
O.N.G.C. Mazdoor Union & Ors. vs Oil And Natural Gas Commission & Ors. on 9 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)3CALLT318(HC), 2000LABLC2571
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition petitioner prayed that the writ in nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees under the respondent No. 1 forthwith. In pursuance of list of seniority as published by the respoondents in annexure 'A' and respondents be directed to fix the wages of the petitioners at par with the regular employees without any further delay.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act and petitioner No. 2 is General Secretary of the Union and petitioner Nos. 3 to 158 are the casual/contingent workers. The respondent No. 1 has been set up by the respondent No. 4 to carry out the research work in the field of Oil and Natural Gas within the territory of India. The respondent No. 1 for the purpose of carry out the research, employed some regular employees as well as engaged the workers on casual and contingent basis. There is a rules for recruitment of the regular employees but service conditions of the petitioners who are contingent employees are regulated and governed by the Certified Standing Orders of the Oil and National Gas Commission. The case of the petitioners that they have worked more than 240 days and employed long back but their services has not been regularised. The details of the date of their appointment and date of completion of 240 days has been given in annexure 'A'.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Dr. Pal has submitted that petitioners have completed more than 240 days rather some of them are working since 1982 onwards with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred as ONGC). Their services should be regularised specially when their service conditions are governed by the Certified Standing Orders issued by the ONGC. He placed reliance on the various decisions such as , , . , . , (1995) supp. (2) SCC 611, , , (1998) 1 CLJ 539 and . On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay submits that the petitioners are seasonal workers. Therefore, they have no right for their regularisation of the service even though they have compleated 240 days. A seniority list has already been published of these contingent employees and they are being taken in the regular service as and when vacancy does arise. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the employees were retained under legal compulsion as there was status-quo order in their favour, when this writ was filed. Therefore, for the period from the date of writ filed, they are retained under compulsion that should not be taken adversely against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stay was granted in 1988 when the writ was filed but the respondents never moved application for vacation of stay and now we are in year 2000. So more than 10-11 years already passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners are retained in service under legal compulsion.
4. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioners who are contingent/casual employees of the respondent No. 4 is governed by Certified Standing Orders issued by the department. The relevant portion of those certified Standing Orders as under :--
"2. (i) Classification of workmen, The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as :
(a) Temporary and
(b) Casual.
(ii) A workman who has been on the rolls of the Commission has put in not less than 180 days of the attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workmen, provided that a temporary workmen who has put in not less than 240 days and who possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the Commission may be considered for convertion as regular employees".
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for regularisation to consider this, I deem it proper to refer some observations of their Lordships in cases relied on by learned counsels of the parties.
6. In Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate and others v. Their Management, AIR 1984. SC 1458 in para 10 their Lordships observed as under:--
"...... It will be recalled that the Standing Orders which have been certified under the Standing Orders Act become part of the Statutory terms and conditions of service between the industrial employer and his employees."
7. In case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Others, their Lordships held in para 22 that once the Standing Order are certified, they constitute the conditions of service binding upon the management and the employees who are already in employment or who may be employed after certification as was laid down by the apex Court. Their Lordships further observed in para 37 that once the Standing Orders are certified they cannot be said either to be not in consonance with the Model Standing Orders or unreasonable or unfair.
8. There is no dispute on the facts that Certified, Standing Orders in question are duly certified in the case in hand. It is, therefore, clear that Certified Standing Orders are binding between employer and employees.
9. Now the grievance of the petitioners that they are in service of respondent No. 1 for last more than 10 to 15 years and they are getting only salary less than 50 percent of salary enjoyed by regular employees of the ONGC. There is also no dispute on the fact that the petitioners have completed 240 days of continuous service within one year from the date of Joining of his service. Even seniority list has been prepared and published wherein the name of the petitioners is found place. The petitioners are working for years together without any break in service whether their service should be regularised.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners Dr. Pal submits that whether there is a regular vacancy or not? But when petitioners are in the service of respondent No. 1 for number of years, their service should be regularised, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that without vacancy their services cannot be regularised.
11. In JacabM. Puthuparambti and Others v. Kerala Water Authority and Others their Lordships observed as under :--
'......Even otherwise, the rule must be so Interpreted, if the language of the rule permits, as will advance this philosophy of the Constitution. If the rule is so Interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long, and who possess the requisite qualifications for the Job as obtaining on the date of their employment, must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularised. It is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since some time as such removal has serious consequences. The family of the employee which had settled down and accommodated its needs to the emolumenis received by the bread winner, will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the precious period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and the Incumbent may be rendered 'age barred' for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him generate hope and a feeling of security in him, attune his family to live within his earnings and then suddenly to throw him out of Job. Such behaviour would be an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Article 41 of the Constitution. Therefore, if we Interpret Rule 9(a) (1) consistently with the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution, which it is permissible to do without doing violence to the said rule, it follows that employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the Job, should not be thrown out but their services should be regularised as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled for regularlsation in service."
12. Their Lordships also given certain guidelines how the services of the casual employees will be regularised which reads as under :--
"(1) The Authority will with immediate effect regularise the services of all ex-PHED employees as per its Resolution of January 30, 1987 without waiting for State Government approval.
(2) The services of workers employed by the Authority between April 1, 1984 and August 4, 1986 will be regularised with immediate effect if they possess the requisite qualifications for the post prescribed on the date of appointment of the concerned worker.
(3) The services of workers appointed after August 4, 1984 and possessing the requisite qualifications should be regulated in accordance with Act 19 of 1970 provided they have put in continuous service of not less than one year, artificial breaks, if any, to be ignored. The Kerala Service Public Service Commission will take immediate steps to regularise their services as a separate block. In so doing the Kerala Public Service Commission will take the age bar as waived.
(4) The Kerala Public Service Commission will consider the question of regularisation of the services of workers who possess the requisite qualifications but have put in less than one year's service, separately. In doing so the Kerala Public Service Commission will take the age bar as waived. If they are found fit they will be placed on the list along with the newly recruited candidates in the order of their respective merits. The Kerala Public Service Commission will be free to rearrange the list accordingly. Thereafter fresh appointments will issue depending on the total number of posts available. If the posts are Inadequate, those presently in employment will make room for the selected candidates but their names will remain on the list and they will be entitled to appointment as and when their turn arives in regular course. The list will ensure for such period as is permissible under the extent rules.
(5) The Authority will be at liberty to deal with the services of the workers who do not possess the requisite qualifications as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law.
(6) These workers whose services have been terminated in violation of this Court's order in respect of which Contempt Petition No. 156 of 1990 is taken out shall be entitled to the benefit of this order as if they continue in service and the case of each worker will be governed by the clause applicable to him depending on the category to which he belongs and if he is found eligible for regularisation he will be restored to service and his proper place."
13. In R.K. Panda and others v. Steel Authority of India and others their Lordships has given some guidelines and directions how the services of the casual employees shall be regularised. The relevant observation of their Lordships in para 9 which reads as under :--
"(i) All labourers, who had been Initially engaged through contractors but have been continuously working with the respondent for the last 10 years on different Jobs assigned to them in spite of the replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found medically fit and If they are below 58 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the respondent.
(ii) While absorbing them as regular employees their inter se seniority shall be determined department/job-wise on the basis of their continuous employment.
(iii) They will not be entitled to the difference in their contractual and regular wages till the date of their absorption. After absorption as regular employees, they shall be paid wages, allowances etc. on a par with their counterparts, working as regular employees with the respondents. If in respect of any group of contract labourers, no rate of wages or emoluments have been fixed by the respondent because those Jobs had not been performed by the regular employees of the respondents in the past, the contract labourers so absorbed for performing the said jobs, shall be paid at the minimum rate payable to the unskilled workmen, doing other similar Jobs.
(iv) After absorption, the contract labourers will be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondent for its own employees irrespective of any existing contract or agreement between the respondent and the contractors. No claim shall be made by the contractors against the respondent for premature termination of their contracts in respect of the contract labourers.
(v) The benefit of absorption shall not be extended to contract labourers who in terms of this Court's order referred to above have taken voluntary retirement on payment of the retrenchment compensation.
(vi) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such retrenchment.
(vii) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material, produced before him by the parties concerned.
(viii) This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 Jobs out of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract labour has already been abolished in 104 jobs.
(ix) This order does not relate to the persons who have already been absorbed.
(x) The persons, who had been retrenched, but in terms of the directions of this Court, have been taken back, shall also be entitled to the benefit of this order. If there is any dispute in respect of the identity of such persons, that shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).
(xi) For the purpose of calculating the payment of retrenchment benefit, in the event of their retrenchment", hereafter, the 10 years' period aforesaid shall be counted, in respect such retrenched persons, although they are absorbed after the passing of this order.
(xii) This order shall be complied with by the respondent within four months from today."
14. These guidelines are given in the cases even when there is no regular post vacant under the rules but if the casual workers/employees are working for long period their services shall be regularised irrespective of the vacancy.
15. Air India Statutory Corporation, etc., v. United Labour Union and others their Lordships has directed to the appellant and observed as under :--
"...... they had been working in Rourkela Plant of the Steel Authority of India for period ranging between 10 to 20 years as contract labour. The employment was of perennial nature. The non-regularisation defeated their right to a Job. The change of contractors under the terms of the agreement will not have any effect on their continuing as a contract of the predecessor contractors. The respondent contended that due to modernisation of the industry, the contract labour are likely to be retrenched. They were prepared to allow the contract labour to retire on voluntary basis or to be absorbed for local employment. A bench of three Judges of this Court had held that the contract labour were continuing in the employment of the respondent for last 10 years, in spite of change of contractors, and hence they were directed to be absorbed as regular employees. On such absorption, their inter se seniority be determined, department or Job-wise on the basis of continuous employment; regular wages will be payable only for the period subsequent to absorption and not for the period thereto. Such of those contract labour in respect of whom the rates of wages have not been fixed, the minimum rate of wages would be payable to such workmen of the wages of the regular employees. The establishment was further directed to pay the wages. If the staff is found in excess of the requirement, the direction for regularisation would not stand in their way to retrench the workmen in accordance with law. If there arises any dispute as regards the indentification of the contract labour to be absorbed, the Chief Labour Commissioner, Central Government, on evidence, would go into that question. The retrenched employees shall also be entitled to the benefit of the decision. The 10 years period mentioned by the Court would count to calculate retrenchment benefits. This ratio is an authority for several propositions. In spite of there being no report by the Advisory Board under section 10(2) and no prohibition under section 10(1), the Act was enforced and this Court directed to absorb them within the guidelines laid down in the judgment This ratio also is an authority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32, Pari materia with Article 226 which is much wider than Article 32 "for any other purpose" under which suitable directions are required to be given based on factual back ground."
16. In Parimal Chandra Raha and others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 1995 supp (2) SCC 611 their Lordships observed after coming to the conclusion that the canteen workers are in fact the employees of the Corporation. Their Lordships have directed the respondents and observed in para 30, 31, and 32 as under :--
"30. The next question is as to what relief are the appellants entitled. As pointed out earlier, the appellants have prayed for the relief of their absorption by the Corporation as its regular employees and also for pay as is paid to the other employees of the Corporation. In view of our finding that the appellants who are the canteen workers in the four offices of the Corporation in Calcutta are entitled to be the employees of the Corporation, the appellants are certainly entitled to the first relief they have claimed. The question, however, is to what service conditions would they be entitled to. They have prayed for the minimum salary paid to the employees of the Corporation which necessarily means the minimum salary of the lowest paid employees of the Corporation, i.e.. of Class IV employees. There would be no difficulty in directing the payment to them of the minimum of the salary paid to the Class IV employees of the Corporation. However, there is distinction between the present service conditions of the appellants and the other Class IV employees of the Corporation. For example, the appellants get free food and free tea. Their hours of service may also differ. There are also different categories of canteen workers such as General Manager, Centeen Manager-cum-Salesman, Kitchen Clerk, Centeen Clerk, Halwai, Assistant Halwai, Cook, Bearer, Washboy, Sweeper etc. It is not possible for the Court to evaluate the work done by each of the categories. Hence different service conditions will have to be prescribed for the different appellants. The Corporation may have, therefore, to prescribe appropriate service conditions for the canteen workers."
"31. Pending the prescription of such service conditions, the Corporation should pay to all the appellants the minimum of the salary presently paid to its Class IV employees taking into consideration and making allowance for the special facilities, if any, available to them and also their special working conditions. In addition, the Corporation should also give them the benefit of the other service conditions available to its Class IV employees."
"32. The question further is from which date the appellant should be deemed to have become the employees of the Corporation and should, therefore, be entitled to the minimum salary and the other benefits. Taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances on record, we are of the view that they should be deemed to have become the regular employees of the Corporation from the date of the filing of the writ petition before the High Court and should therefore, be paid the arrears of salary and other monetary benefits that they may have received. The years of continuous service put in by them even prior to the aforesaid date as canteen workers should, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating their retiral benefits."
17. In the case in hand the petitioners are directly employed by respondent No. 1, The case of the petitioners stand on better footing.
18. In Chief Conservator of Forests and another, etc. etc., v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, etc., their Lordships have considered the aspect of unfair labour practice and what leave can be given to the labour where for number of years they are exploited by the employer and whether any financial strain on State exchaquer affects the relief of the labours of the workers who worked for number of years and were not paid their due. Their Lordships have considered these Issues in para 22. 25 and 28 which reads as under :--
"22. We have given our due thought to the aforesaid rival contentions and, according to us, the object of the State Act, inter alia, being prevention of certain unfair labour practices, the same would be thwarted or get frustrated is such a burden is placed on a workman which he cannot reasonably discharge. In our opinion. It would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in the second part of the item, if bad its, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that the present was such a case Inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who went to Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to Industrial Court Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them the status of permanent employees in as much as giving of this status would required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence permanent We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on increase because of Increase in pollution. Permanancy is thus writ large on the face of both the types of work. If. even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests Itself; no scrutiny is reauired. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants."
"25. To bring home his submission regarding the unjust nature of the relief relating to regularisation, Shri Bhandare sought to rely on the decision of this Court in Delhi Employment Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, (1993) 1 JT(SC) 394 : (1992 AIR SCW 616). We do not think that the ratio of this decision is applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the employment of persons on daily wage basis under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna by the Development Depatment of Delhi Administration, whose claim for regularlsation was dealt in the aforesaid case was entirely different from that of the scheme in which the respondents workmen were employed. Jawhar Rozgar Yojna was evolved to provide Income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and, therefore, without any Income whatsoever. It is because of this that the Bench observed that the object of the scheme was not to provide right to work as such even to the rural poor, much less to the unemployed in general. As against this, the workmen who were employed under the schemes at hand had been so done to advance objects having permanent basis as adverted to by us."
"28. In so far as the financial strain on State exchequer is concerned, which submission is sought to be buttressed by Shri Dholakia by stating that in the Forests Department itself the casual employees are about 1.4 lacs and if all of them were to be regularised and paid at the rate applicable to permanent workmen, the financial involvement would be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 300 crores a very high figure Indeed. We have not felt inclined to bear in mind this contention of Shri Dholakia as the same has been brought out almost from the last The argument relating to financial burden is one of despair or in terrorem. We have neither been impressed by the first nor frightended by the second inasmuch as we do not intend that the view to be taken by us in these applies should apply, proprio vigore, to all casual labourers of the Forests Department or any other Department of the Government."
19. In Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and other etc., their Lordships has considered and expressed that the law Courts exist for the society and in the event law Courts feel requirement in accordance with the principles of natural justice equity and good conscence, the law Courts rise up the occasion to meet the expectation of the people. In the case where the employees have not completed only 240 days but serving the department for more than 8 to 10 years in the public interest, their services should be regularised. The relevant observation of Their Lordships in para 18 as under :--
"18. As noticed above Draconion concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of the interpreting a social and beneficial piece of legislation specially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity ought to survive with full vigour : socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be given its full play and it is in this perspective the question arises--is it permissible in the new millennium to decry the cry of the labour force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240 days in an establishment and having their workings supervised and administered by an agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution--the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative--"
20. In para 19 their Lordships further found that the contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and real contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand and the employees, on the other, could be clearly visualised.
21. When the contract employees can be regularised on the basis of length of their service in the department, the petitioners in the case in hand have served the ONGC for the last 10-15 years, they have better claimed for regularisation.
22. In Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and another v. Shramik Sena and others their Lordships has concluded that even in a cases where the appointments are not in accordance with the rules governing the appointments or the established policy of recruitment of the management. In respect of that the services of such employees are regularised with a view to eradicate unfair labour practices and in equity to undo social injustice and their Lordships observed as under :--
"29. In this appeal, the workmen have questioned the conditions that have been imposed by the High Court while directing regularisation of the workmen. They contend that once the Court comes to the conclusion that the workmen are in fact the employees of the management, there is no occasion to impose these conditions. We are unable to agree with this argument. It should be borne in mind that the Initial appointments of those workmen are not in accordance with the rules governing the appointments or the established policy of recruitment of the management. The said recruitments could also be in contravention of the various statutory orders Including the reservation policy. Further the respondent is an instrumentality of the State and has an obligation to confer to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In spite of the same the services of the workmen are being regularised by the Court not as a matter of right of the workmen arising under any statute but with a view to eradicate unfair labour practices and in equity to undo social Injustice and as a measure of labour welfare. Therefore, it is necessary that in this process suitable guidelines or conditions be laid down at the time of Courts Issuing directions to regularise the services of the workmen so concerned depending upon the facts of each case. This Court has consistently followed this practice in the earlier cases of regular I sation and we do not find any reason to differ from the same. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal also fails and the same is dismissed but with costs.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents has submits two Judgments. In State of U.P. and Others v. Ajay Kumar the respondents was a daily-wager as Class (IV) reversing the order of High Court. Their Lordships held that when the respondent was appointed for a-particular work and he can continues so long as the work exists. The direction of the High Court that whether work exist or not his service should be continued till vacancy arose, in order to regularise his services is illegal.
24. In Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and another the facts before their Lordships that appellant appointed on temporary against permanent post but the appointment was not in accordance with rules. The post was also within the purview of Public Service Commission. Their Lordships held that on the basis of resolution the service of the respondent cannot be regularised.
25. On the facts of this petition the decision in the cases, relied on by learned counsel of respondent, has no application.
26. In cases of Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate and others (supra) their Lordships held that the Certified Standing Orders which have been certified under the Standing Orders Act becomes part of the Statutory terms and conditions of service between the industrial employer and his employees.
27. Even in their subsequent Judgment their Lordships observed in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation (supra) that once the Standing Orders are certified they cannot be said either to be not in consonance with the Model Standing Orders or unreasonable or unfair. There is no dispute in the case in hand that the Standing Orders are certified by the management and in pursuance of that a seniority list has been issued. The perusal of the seniority list annexure (A) reveals that some of the petitioners were engaged in 1981-82-83 and they are in service till today. Though from 1988 respondent has submitted that they are in service because of the stay order of this Court but prior to that there was no stay order and they were in service till 1988 without any order of the Court. That shows even before filing of the writ some of the petitioners were completed about 7 to 8 years of service and by now some of the petitioners have completed about 20 years of service. Even otherwise after stay order of the Court there is no application for vacation of stay or for early hearing. If the respondent No. 1 has no work for these petitioners why they have not moved any application to this effect for vacation of stay. That shows that respondent No. 1 has some work for these petitioners round the year for a period from date of appointment till today.
28. The Certified Standing Orders provides the classification of employees in two categories, temporary and casual. The employee who has completed 180 days of his attendance he be treated as temporary workmen and temporary employee who has completed 240 days and have minimum qualification for the post he be considered for regular employee. Admittedly only few of them are treated as regular employees against some vacant post. The question does arise suppose no vacancy arises for another 20 years whether these petitioners will not be treated at par with the regular employees though they served for 40 years. Therefore, if it is so it is an unfair labour practice.
29. Thus whether there is post under the recruitment rules or riot it is not material in the cases where the employees are working for more than 10 years continuously. Here in this case some of the employees have completed about 20 years of service. Their Lordship has already taken the view that it is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometimes, as such removal has serious consequences. The family of the employees who has setteled down and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the bread winner will face economic ruination, if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides, the previous period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and the incumbent may be rendered 'age barred' for securing a Job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him, generate hope and a feeling of security in him, attune his family to live within his earnings and they suddenly to throw him out of job. Such behaviour would be an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Article of the Constitution and then their Lordships give directions that the sevice of the employees be regularised.
30. It is, therefore, necessary to regularise the service of the employee who are working with the management for number of years.
31. Similar view has been taken by their Lordships in case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra), in case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board (supra) their Lordships again reiterated its earlier view and held that in a case where the employees have not only completed only 240 days but served the department for more than 8 to 10 years, their services should be regularised.
32. Their services in fact should also be regularised with a view to eradicate unfair labour practices and in equity to undo social Injustice which is being done to the poor class of the society.
33. In the facts and circumstances of this petition, I direct that :--
33.1 The services of the petitioners who are in the service of ONGC for more than 10 years, their services shall be regularised.
33.2. As different petitioners have Joined on different dates their services shall be regularised from the date the employee has completed 10 years service in the ONGC. If there is no specific post then service of the employee shall be regularised as Class (IV) employee in the ONGC.
33.3. While regularising the service of the petitioners the services of the employees who are senior to them shall also be regularised along with the petitioners.
33.4. Any employee of respondent No. 1 retired after filing of this petition after completion of 10 years service with respondent No. 1 and senior to the petitioners his service shall be deemed to have been regularised from the dale he has completed 10 years with the ONGC and he will be entitled for the benefit at par the petitioners.
34. If some employee claims that he was working on a higher post than Class (IV) and there is a dispute on the claim, Chief Commissioner of Labour (Central) shall be the final authority to decide the dispute whether that employee was working for more than 10 years on a higher post than Class (IV).
35. Any employee whose services is regularised prior to this order and who is senior to any petitoner on the date of his regularisation of service, the benefits which are given to the petitioners shall be extended to him also and his seniority in the service be taken from the date he completed 10 years in service of respondent No. 1.
The age limit will not come in the way of any employee, if he is below 58 years of age and otherwise suitable for the post.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. Later Stay, prayed for, is rejected urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties expectitiously.
36. Petition disposed of