Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 09 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Writ Petition No. 13673 of 2025 filed by Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) against Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑II (CGIT‑II) and another respondent.
  • Counsel: petitioner represented by Mr. J.P. Cama (Senior Advocate) with Ms. Mallika Joshi & Mr. Akshay Gupte (Solomon & Co.); respondent No. 2 represented by Mr. Lilesh P. Sawant.
  • Background: CGIT‑II, in Reference No. CGIT 1/19 of 2008, issued an Award dated 24 April 2025 holding that nine field‑operator workmen were entitled to permanency and directing ONGC to make them permanent upon completion of 240 days of service, with financial benefits to be paid within two months.
  • Dispute Origin: In 2008, 79 workmen (including the nine) raised a dispute before the Ministry of Labour, which referred the matter to CGIT‑II questioning the legality of fixed‑term engagements on offshore rigs. During the pendency, 55 of the 79 were regularised through open recruitment; 15 exited by retirement, death or resignation, leaving nine workmen as the sole parties to the Reference.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • The ID Act, 1947 does not apply to employees working beyond 12 nautical miles, invoking Aban Loyd Chilies Offshore Ltd.; therefore CGIT‑II lacked jurisdiction.
  • Regularisation and permanency are distinct; the Tribunal overstepped by granting permanency.
  • The nine were back‑door entrants lacking qualifications and should not receive permanency.
  • No evidence of sanctioned vacancies; the Tribunal created posts ex‑facie.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑arguments:
  • All appointment orders were issued in Mumbai; service‑related decisions (including disciplinary actions) were taken in India, so the ID Act applies.
  • Workers were selected through the Employment Exchange, cleared written tests, and met prescribed qualifications; they are not back‑door entrants.
  • Continuous service of over 25 years demonstrates the need for their skills; participation in regular recruitment does not bar regularisation.
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • The Court rejected the jurisdictional plea, noting that despite offshore posting, the appointment letters, HR actions, and disciplinary processes were all anchored in Mumbai, making the ID Act fully applicable.
  • The Court held that Aban Loyd Chilies concerned customs duty on spare parts and is inapplicable to employment law.
  • Extensive citation of Supreme Court precedents (Umadevi (3), State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, B.N. Nagarajan, etc.) clarified that regularisation (conversion of irregular appointments into regular ones) is not synonymous with permanency and that tribunals cannot create posts or confer permanency absent a sanctioned vacancy.
  • The Court acknowledged the exception in Umadevi (3) paragraph 53, which permits regularisation of irregularly appointed, duly qualified employees who have served ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.
  • The nine workmen satisfied the qualification criterion, were engaged via the Employment Exchange, and have rendered uninterrupted service for more than a quarter of a century; therefore, they fall within the Umadevi exception.
  • The Tribunal’s direction to grant permanency on completion of 240 days was deemed beyond its statutory power; the Court modified the award to grant regularisation effective upon completion of ten years of service from the date of initial engagement.
  • Service Tenure Details: The judgment reproduced the appointment chronology of each of the nine workers (Ankush Gopal Katara, Liladhar M. Koli, Kailash S. Dandekar, Sandeep D. Chari, Sunil Tukaram Sakpal, Milind Parkar, Siddharth D. Bhika, Prashant Pawaskar, Abraham Ahmad Mohammed), showing successive fixed‑term engagements from 2000‑2001 through multiple extensions up to 2021, confirming continuous service.

Final Outcome

  • The Award dated 24 April 2025 is modified: the nine workers shall be treated as regular employees of ONGC with effect from the date of completion of ten years of service from their initial engagements.
  • All consequential benefits (salary differentials, allowances, etc.) are to be paid within eight weeks of the order.
  • The writ petition is partly allowed; the rule is made partly absolute; no order as to costs.

Topics: Labor Law, Industrial Relations