MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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