Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

The Denial of Regularization of 13 Workmen Wholly Unjustified: Supreme Court Asserts in Mahanadi Coalfields Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court addressed a significant legal issue concerning the regularization of contract workers performing perennial and permanent tasks. The judgment delved into the interpretation of contractual obligations and workers’ rights under the National Coal Wage Agreement and Industrial Disputes Act.

The dispute involved Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) and Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union over the regularization of contract workers. MCL had employed workers through a contractor for coal transportation. The Union sought permanent status for these workers under the clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV, which discourages employing contract labour for permanent jobs.

The Court meticulously assessed the nature of work performed by the 13 non-regularized workers. It was found that their duties were similar to those performed by the 19 regularized workers, contradicting MCL’s classification of their jobs as 'casual'. This formed the basis for the Court's disagreement with MCL’s contention that the settlement regarding 19 workers was binding and final.

The Court referenced the evidence from witnesses, including the personal manager (MW3) and project officer (MW4) of the appellant company, who admitted that the tasks undertaken by all workers were regular and perennial. This undermined the distinction made between the workers in the earlier settlement.

Further, the Court criticized the artificial distinction between workers in the bunker, Coal Handling Plant, and railway siding. It was highlighted that such distinction lacked substantial justification as the duties were perennial, and no credible evidence was presented to treat the two groups differently.

The Supreme Court, considering the facts and the Tribunal’s findings, dismissed the appeals by MCL. It upheld the Tribunal’s decision for regularization of the 13 workers and granted them backwages from the date of the Tribunal's decision (23.05.2002), citing the unjustified denial of regularization.

Date of Decision: 12th March 2024

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union,

Similar News