Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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,

Latest Legal News