Supreme Court Clarifies: Workers Engaged in Permanent Tasks Deemed Regularized

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court addressed the classification of workers performing permanent or perennial tasks as contract workers under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The bench asserted that such tasks inherently demand regular or permanent employment rather than contractual arrangements. They affirmed the decision favoring non-regularized workers who were denied regularization benefits despite undertaking permanent or perennial work, such as removing spillages in railway sidings.

Case Summary: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. floated a tender for coal transportation and employed a contractor for the task. The workers sought permanent status based on the nature of their work. Despite a settlement, the Industrial Tribunal directed the regularization of certain workers. The High Court upheld this decision, which was challenged by the management.

Contentions: The management argued that a prior settlement prevented the tribunal from granting permanent status. They contended that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which applies to directly supervised workers, didn’t cover workers under the settlement. The workers asserted that all workers performed similar tasks and were arbitrarily denied regularization. They sought remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, highlighting the perennial nature of their tasks.

Court’s Observations: The Supreme Court rejected the management’s contention, upholding the tribunal’s decision to grant permanent status to workers. They emphasized the workers’ similarity in status and tasks, affirming their regularization. Back wages were awarded from the tribunal’s order date, not from the date of employment.

Court’s Decision: The appeal was dismissed, directing back wages for the concerned workers from the tribunal’s order date.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Sandeep Mehta
• Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 158 SC
• Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv., and others
• Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv., and others

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!