Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.50 seconds)The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 20 November, 2006
In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 1 SCC 250], an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Sangh for regularization of the services of workmen who worked as casual/contingent/temporary workmen. The Union filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that pending reference, ONGC has started giving work to contractors in preference to the casual/contingent/temporary workmen and thereby altered the terms of service of the workmen and committed breach of Section 33 of the said Act. The Tribunal, vide award dated 30.10.1993, held that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to examine whether the work of ONGC was seasonal or not or whether ONGC had committed breach of terms of service of the workmen by giving the work to contractors and the Tribunal directed ONGC to follow the principle of Last Come First Go in case it wanted to terminate the services of casual/temporary workmen on the ground that they had not worked and therefore, ONGC was required to obtain prior permission of the Tribunal under Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act. The Tribunal, after taking notice of Rule 2 of the Certain Standing Orders held that a casual workman who put in attendance of 180 days or more days in 12 consecutive months automatically became a temporary workman who would 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.
R. Rathakrishnan vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 11 October, 2007
27. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management that there cannot be any positive direction to the respondent/ONGC to regularize the services of the workmen, if they were appointed in violation of the rules and regulations and drawn the attention of this Court to the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Rathakrishnan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul [2007 (4) L.L.N. 868] and also reiterated his submissions by placing reliance upon the decision in State of Gujarat and Another v. Karshanbhai K.Rabari and Others [2006 (3) L.L.J. 359], which laid down the proposition that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment, through which permanence can be given to adhoc employee.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & ... vs Chander Hass & Anr on 6 December, 2007
26. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ONGC also placed reliance upon the decision in International Airport Authority of India and International Air Cargo Workers' Union and Another [2009 LLR 923], which dealt with the issue relating to non-absorption of workmen and would submit that in the above said decision, it was held that the workmen therein are not entitled to absorption as they were regular employees of Air Freight and that IAAI had no obligation to absorb or employ them and admittedly the workers were contract employees of the respondent/ONGC and on formation of the Society, being members of the Society, continue to work as Messengers and Sanitary Workers etc., and as such, they are not entitled for regularization.
Ongc Ltd vs Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors on 17 April, 2015
In the considered opinion of the Court, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ONGC v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others [(2015) 6 SCC 494] is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and as such, the workmen in Sl.Nos.1 to 15, 17 of the tabulation extracted above in paragraph 12 are entitled for regularization and absorption in respect of posts held by them. Insofar as the date of regularization is concerned, admittedly they had also participated in the process to accommodate which took place on 15.12.1997, 18.12.1998 as well as in the year 2000 and they became unsuccessful and in the light of the said fact and also taking into consideration of the fact that they continue to work pursuant to various interim orders passed by this Court, they can be regularized from the date on which 11 Term Based appointees were appointed as Junior Attendants and so also 3 Sanitary Cleaners.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Karshanbhai K. Rabari & Ors on 18 July, 2006
27. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management that there cannot be any positive direction to the respondent/ONGC to regularize the services of the workmen, if they were appointed in violation of the rules and regulations and drawn the attention of this Court to the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Rathakrishnan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul [2007 (4) L.L.N. 868] and also reiterated his submissions by placing reliance upon the decision in State of Gujarat and Another v. Karshanbhai K.Rabari and Others [2006 (3) L.L.J. 359], which laid down the proposition that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment, through which permanence can be given to adhoc employee.
Accounts Officer (A&I) Apsrtc & Ors vs K. V. Ramana & Ors on 8 January, 2007
24. The primordial submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management is that as per ONGC Modified Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980, the existing employees with qualification below standard VIII will be treated as under qualified including Sanitary Cleaner and Mali recruited under MRPR' 1980 and for the post of Junior Attendant, the minimum education qualification prescribed is a Matriculate. Since the concerned workmen did not fulfill the necessary qualifications, they cannot be considered for regularization. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Management has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in Accounts Officer (A&I), APSRTC and Others v. K.V.Ramana and Others [2007 (1) LLJ 1042 (SC)], wherein it has been held that long period of service is not a ground for regularization and regularization of contractual or casual employees dehors rules not to be granted by Courts.