Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Whether the demand of Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, Vadodra that the employees employed in the ONGC, Western Region, Vadodra who have completed 240 days or more in the Commission as casual/contingent/temporary be regularized as permanent workman from the date of their engagement in ONGC, with other consequential benefits, is justified? If yes, to what reliefs the said workmen are entitled?"

While the reference was pending, the union filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act' ) being Complaint (ITC) No.5/1993 alleging that the ONGC had started giving work to contractors in preference to the casual/contingent/temporary workmen and had thus altered the terms of service of the workmen and committed breach of Section 33 of the 1947 Act. The said complaint was tried by the Tribunal and by its award dated 30th October, 1993, it held that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to examine whether the work of the ONGC was seasonal or not or whether the ONGC had breached the terms of service of the workmen by giving the work to contractors in preference to the casual/contingent/temporary workmen. By the said order, the ONGC was also directed to follow the principle of "last come first go" in case it wanted to terminate the services of the casual/temporary workmen on the ground that they had no work. In such case, the ONGC was required to obtain the prior permission of the Tribunal under Section 33 (1) (a) of the 1947 Act.

Consequent upon such order, the ONGC filed an application on 25th April, 1994 seeking permission to terminate the services of the casual/temporary workmen mentioned in the list enclosed with the application. Due notice of the application was served on the Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and after hearing both the sides, by order dated 30th May, 1994, the Tribunal directed the ONGC to terminate the services of casual/contingent/temporary workmen, except 189 out of 269 workmen who were indicated in the list filed by the union.

"2 Classification of Workmen

(i) The contingent employees of the Commission shall hereafter be classified as under:-

(a) Temporary, and

(b) Casual

(ii) A workman who has been on the rolls of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put in not less than 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee.

(iii) A workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as casual workman."

On the basis of the above, the Tribunal held that a casual workman who put in attendance of 180 or more days in 12 consecutive months automatically became a temporary workman who could after completion of 240 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months and possessing qualifications be considered for conversion as a regular employee. The Tribunal also rejected the list of 269 workmen shown by the Union who according to the Union had completed 240 days and accepted as correct the list submitted by the Chief Geophysicist showing about 189 workmen arranged in descending order as per number of days put in by each workmen. Taking such list to be correct and proceeding on the assumption that the workmen had completed 240 days in the Commission, the Tribunal ordered as follows:-