{"id":124564,"date":"2006-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-29T10:55:19","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T05:25:19","slug":"mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2027-2028 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nMineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMineral Exploration Corporation Limited and Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant before us is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees’
\nUnion (AITUC) through its General Secretary, Respondent No.1 is the Mineral
\nExploration Corporation Ltd., though its Chairman and Managing Director,
\nSeminari Hills, Nagpur and the second respondent is the Union of India
\nthrough the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant-Union preferred the above appeals against the common judgment
\nand order dated 26.2.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
\nin Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed
\nWrit Petition No. 1981 of 1998 filed by respondent No.1 (Corporation) and
\ndismissed Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 filed by the Union and has set
\naside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.3.1998.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant is a registered Trade Union affiliated to AITUC. Respondent
\nNo.1 (Corporation) is a Public Sector Undertaking managed and controlled by
\nthe Ministry of Mines and is engaged in the exploration\/discovery of
\nmineral prospects\/resources for rapid industrial growth in the country.
\nRespondent No.1 is having various projects all over the country including
\ntheir branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has employed approx. 5000
\nemployees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work in
\nthe projects.\n<\/p>\n
According to the Union, the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration
\nCorporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” have
\ncompleted minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they were not
\nregularized nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales.
\nConsequently, the workmen started demanding regular pay scales and their
\nregularization in service. On the other hand, the Corporation resorted to
\nretrenchment of workmen which caused serious industrial unrest and
\nultimately the Union took up the matter and held discussions with the
\nCorporation.\n<\/p>\n
Since the discussion failed, an industrial dispute was raised under the
\nprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Regional Labour
\nCommissioner (Central) at Nagpur who held various conciliation meetings
\nwith both the parties. Even the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus the
\nRegional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, in exercise of powers vested in him
\nunder Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitted a failure
\nreport to the Ministry of Labour, who in turn referred the dispute for
\nadjudication to the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court,
\nJabalpur vide order dated 7.1.1993. The question referred to the Tribunal
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the action of the management of Mineral Exploration
\n\tCorporation Ltd., Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S\/Shri
\n\tA.K. Janson 2144 others (as per Annexures `A’ attached) and
\n\tdepriving them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is
\n\tjustified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are
\n\tentitled to and from what date?\n<\/p>\n
AND<\/p>\n
\tWhether the action of the management of MECL, Nagpur in not
\n\tproviding employment to Smt. Surya Gayee and 63 others (As per
\n\tAnnexure – B attached) as the legal heirs\/dependents of deceased
\n\temployees on compassionate grounds is justified? If not, to what
\n\trelief are they entitled to and from what date?”\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both the parties and
\nconsidering the arguments, vide its award dated 24.3.1998, held that all
\nthe workmen in dispute, whose names have been shown in Annexure “A” i.e.
\n2145 workmen, be regularized in the services of respondent No.1 within a
\nperiod of three months and further held that the workmen were entitled for
\nregular pay scales, increments, dearness allowance, leave facility from the
\ndate of publication of the award. The Tribunal, however, did not award the
\nregularization and regular pay scales from the date of the order of
\nreference. The Tribunal answered the issue in relation to the appointments
\nof heirs\/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, in
\nfavour of the Union and thus issued consequential directions to the
\nrespondent-Corporation in that behalf. The award was published on
\n13.4.1998.\n<\/p>\n
The Corporation preferred writ petition before the High Court being Writ
\nPetition No. 1981 of 1998 challenging the Award passed by the Industrial
\nTribunal. The Union also preferred Writ Petition before the High Court
\nbeing Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 challenging the Award dated 24.3.1998
\nto the extent the Tribunal refused the relief of regular pay scales and
\nregularization of the workmen from the date of reference i.e., 7.1.1993.\n<\/p>\n
Both the writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge of
\nthe High Court. The arguments were concluded on 24.11.1998 and after the
\nconclusion of oral arguments; both the parties filed their written
\nstatements before the High Court. However, according to the Union, special
\nissues raised by the Union and the material relied upon in support of the
\ncontentions have not been adverted to in the impugned judgment, presumably
\nbecause the judgment was delivered after some gap of time, which has caused
\nserious miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
The learned single Judge of the High Court, by a common judgment and order,
\ndisposed off both the writ petitions together. The High Court allowed the
\nwrit petition filed by the Corporation and set aside the Award passed by
\nthe Tribunal in entirety. The High Court affirmed the findings of the
\nTribunal on material issues, but, reversed the Award and dismissed the writ
\npetition preferred by the Union.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the same, the Union has preferred the above appeals by way of
\nspecial leave petitions before this Court. During the pendency of the
\nspecial leave petitions, this Court on 3.5.1999, passed an interim order
\ndirecting the Corporation to provide work to the members of the Union as
\ncasual employees provided there is work available and if the members of the
\nUnion are willing to go to the places where the work is available. On
\n18.1.2006, this Court directed to call these appeals after the disposal of
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 which have been heard by the
\nConstitution Bench. The Constitution Bench delivered the judgment on
\n10.4.2006. Now these appeals are placed before us for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
We heard Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K.P.
\nViswanathan, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-Union and Mr.
\nV.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.G.N. Nair, learned
\ncounsel, appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Union submitted
\nthat the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of
\nthe Constitution of India, can not interfere with the findings of fact
\nrecorded by the Industrial Tribunal, that too without recording any cogent
\nfinding and in the absence of any material to show that the Award passed by
\nthe Tribunal suffers from any perversity or error apparent on the face of
\nthe record. Though several other grounds have been raised in the appeals,
\nMr. V.A. Bobde, at the time of hearing, confined the arguments only on two
\nissues. He submitted that the High Court was not right in reversing the
\nAward of the Tribunal even on the question of compassionate appointments
\nnotwithstanding the clinching material on record placed before the Tribunal
\nwhich goes to show that the respondent-Corporation had framed a policy for
\nappointments to be made on compassionate grounds coupled with the fact that
\ncommensurate posts were also available and, therefore, it was bound to
\nimplement its own policy indiscriminately. He also submitted that the
\nquestion of non-regularisation of contingent workmen, when each of them has
\nworked for minimum of 8 years and maximum of 20 years, does not have the
\ninevitable effect of commission of unfair labour practice which is
\nprohibited within the purport of Sections 25(T) and 25(U) and that the
\nconclusion reached by the High Court for reversing the Award of the
\nTribunal on question of regularisation is contrary to the overwhelming
\nevidence adduced on record before the Tribunal and the sound reasoning
\nadopted by the Tribunal for granting the said relief to the workmen. He
\nalso submitted that the completion of project by respondent No.1 was
\ninconsequential in view of the established fact that even after the
\ncompletion of project, contingent workmen were continued in service upon
\ntheir absorption\/continuation in other projects as and when the same was
\ncommenced. He further contended that it is obligatory on the respondent-
\nCorporation to regularise the contingent workmen who have completed minimum
\n8 years of service and maximum 20 years of service.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Bobde contended that the Courts below have totally ignored the
\nevidence of the workers in which they have categorically stated that they
\nare serving with the respondent-Corporation since last so many years and,
\ntherefore, the workers are entitled for regularisation and regular pay
\nscales. He invited our attention to the finding of the Tribunal that all
\nthe workers were working in the respondent-Corporation since last so many
\nyears and the Tribunal has further held that the workers are entitled for
\nregularisation, therefore, there was no justification for denying their
\nclaim for regularisation and regular pay scales from the date of the order
\nof reference i.e. 7.1.1993. It was further submitted that the workers have
\nbeen transferred from one project to the other and they have been given up-
\ngradation, also provident fund contribution have also been deducted from
\ntheir salaries. As a matter of fact, for all the purposes, workers have
\nbeen treated as regular employees of the respondent-Corporation, but while
\nmaking the award, they have been denied the benefits of regularisation and
\npay scales from retrospective date or at least from the date of order of
\nreference, without any cogent reasons. Likewise, the learned single Judge
\ncommitted a serious error in interfering with the award relating to
\ncompassionate appointment. Paragraph 21 of the judgment was brought to our
\nnotice. The conclusion of the learned single Judge is completely vitiated
\non account of non-consideration of the material on record. In paragraph 21,
\nthe learned single Judge set aside the award only on the ground that no
\ndecision of the employer was brought to the notice of the learned single
\nJudge for providing appointment on compassionate grounds.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, Mr. V.A. Bobde, referred to the counter affidavit filed
\nin reply to the writ petition before the learned single Judge in which the
\nwhole set-up policy framed by the Corporation along with the correspondence
\nof the Management were placed on record as part of the counter affidavit
\nand specific attention of the learned single Judge, at the time of argument
\nto the said Rule for compassionate appointment, was drawn. The same,
\nhowever, seems to have been completely missed by the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Our attention was also drawn to the Scheme for providing suitable
\nemployment to persons on compassionate grounds. The Scheme is available at
\npage 205 of Vol.II of the appeal paper book. The Object of the Scheme shall
\nbe to give employment to a member of the family of a deceased employee as a
\nwelfare measure. The Scheme says that one dependent of the deceased
\nemployee in whose case these rules are applicable shall be entitled for
\nconsideration of the employment in the following orders of precedence:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWife or husband as the case may be<\/p>\n
(ii)\tSon<\/p>\n
(iii)\tUnmarried daughter<\/p>\n
(iv)\tMother or Father<\/p>\n
(v)\tBrother<\/p>\n
(vi)\tUnmarried sister<\/p>\n
Note : In case of more than one claimant in the same category, the senior
\nmost person in that category will be given precedence.\n<\/p>\n
At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to the judgment delivered
\nby the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of
\nKarnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi,<\/a> 3 and Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 1. The said case
\ndeals with public employment, absorption, regularization, or permanent
\ncontinuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc
\nemployees appointed\/recruited and continued for long in public employment
\nde hors the constitutional scheme of public employment. Our attention was
\nspecifically drawn to paragraph 53 of the said judgment authored by Hon.
\nP.K. Balasubramanian, J. for the Bench, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
\n\tirregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in
\n\tS.V. Narayanappa [1967] 1 SCR 128, R.N. Nanjundappa [1972] 2 SCR
\n\t799, and B.N. Nagarajan [1979] 3 SCR 937, and referred to in
\n\tparagraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
\n\tvacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued
\n\tto work for ten years or more but without the intervention of
\n\torders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of
\n\tregularization of the services of such employees may have to be
\n\tconsidered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this
\n\tCourt in the cases above referred to and in the light of this
\n\tjudgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
\n\tGovernments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
\n\tregularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly
\n\tappointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned
\n\tposts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals
\n\tand should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken
\n\tto fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up,
\n\tin cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now
\n\temployed. The process must be set in motion within six months from
\n\tthis date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already
\n\tmade, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
\n\tjudgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the
\n\tconstitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent,
\n\tthose not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
It is seen from the above paragraph that this Court directed the Union of
\nIndia, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to regularize as a
\none-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed workmen, who
\nhave worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
\ncover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure
\nthat regular recruitments are undertaking to fill those vacant sanctioned
\nposts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or
\ndaily wagers are being now employed.\n<\/p>\n
Placing strong reliance on the above passage, Mr. V.A. Bobde submitted that
\nthe respondent-Corporation should be directed to take steps to regularize
\nthe services of the members of the appellant-Union who have worked for ten
\nyears or more in duly sanctioned posts. He further submitted that in view
\nof the verdict of the Constitutional Bench, the respondent-Corporation is
\nduty bound to consider the case of the members of the appellant-Union who
\nsatisfy the test prescribed in paragraph 53 of the above judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondent first invited our
\nattention to the various documents relied on by the Corporation. He drew
\nour attention to the Appointment Order. A model Form of Appointment Order
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“TEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION AT
\n_______________ PROJECT<\/p>\n
APPOINTMENT ORDER<\/p>\n
Shri ______________ S\/o ________________ is hereby offered a temporary
\nappointment on contingent\/temporary basis @ Rs. ______ per day for
\nunskilled nature of job in the temporary industrial establishment at
\n____________, project on the following terms and conditions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe appointment will be purely on contingent\/temporary basis and
\nthe contract of employment will terminate on ___________ or completion of
\nwork whichever is earlier. The contract of employment can be renewed for a
\nfurther specific period, if deemed fit as per exigencies of work, by issue
\nof a specific order.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe appointee will have to perform any of the jobs of unskilled
\ncategory which may be assigned to him from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to
\n\t\t    Shri _________, he should send his acceptance in the
\n\t\t    enclosed proforma and report on duty immediately.\n<\/p>\n
PROJECT MANAGER”\n<\/p>\n
Relying upon the above appointment order, Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted that the
\nappointments were purely on contingent\/temporary basis and the contract of
\nemployment will terminate on the completion of the project work and,
\ntherefore, they are not entitled for regularization. He invited our
\nattention to the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.9.1979 in the Chamber of
\nthe Chairman-cum-Managing Director between Management of MECL and MEC
\nEmployees Union and the decision taken on regularization.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant paragraph reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Regularization<\/p>\n
Regarding regularization, a committee was appointed duly to assess jobs of
\ncontinuous nature on which the representatives of the MECEU were also
\nrepresented. The report of this committee has been received, recently, and
\nits recommendations will be put up to the Board of Directors in its next
\nmeeting. Every efforts will be made to obtain the permission of the
\nDirector General, Employment & training to fill the vacancies, which will
\nthus be available, out of the contingent workmen based on their seniority
\nand their sustainability. The work of regularization of such contingent
\nworkers will be completed within a period of four months from the date of
\nthe approval of the Board of Directors.”\n<\/p>\n
He drew our attention to the Abstract of Standing Order which deals with
\npermanent employees and contingent\/temporary workmen and the probationers
\netc. Our attention was drawn to clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Standing
\nOrder which defines a “contingent\/temporary” workman as one who has been
\nengaged on work which is of an essentially temporary nature likely to be
\nfinished within a limited period.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.R. Reddy invited our attention to the affidavit dated 12.5.2006 filed
\non behalf of the Corporation. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In compliance of the directions of this Court the respondent
\n\tCorporation has been inviting the ex-contingent workmen for
\n\tengaging them whenever work was available and the respondent is
\n\tcontinuing to do so. For this purpose the respondent Corporation
\n\thas been issuing notices through publications in the Newspapers and
\n\talso by furnishing the necessary information to the petitioner
\n\tUnion for the benefit of the workers.\n<\/p>\n
\tBut in spite of the wide publicity given in this matter incurring
\n\theavy expenses, the response from the workmen was very scant as
\n\tonly very few persons were willing to work at places where work was
\n\tavailable. A statement containing the details of projects where the
\n\ttemporary nature of work arose and the number of workmen required
\n\tand the publications made in the Newspapers regarding the said work
\n\tis annexed as annexure-R1(A).”\n<\/p>\n
He further submitted that since the Constitution Bench has pronounced the
\njudgment on 10.4.2006, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
\nkeeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench and hence these
\nappeals are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
He also relied on paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign
\n\tState or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in
\n\tposts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or
\n\ttaking them in without following the required procedure, to
\n\tdischarge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned
\n\tand that are required to be filled in terms of the relevant
\n\tprocedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary
\n\tposts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of
\n\tthe Union or of the State Government cannot but be recognized and
\n\tthere is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging
\n\tof persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the
\n\tsituation. But the fact that such engagements are resorted to,
\n\tcannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment. Nor
\n\tcan a court say that the Union or the State Governments do not have
\n\tthe right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or
\n\tuntil the work in a particular project is completed. Once this
\n\tright of the Government is recognized and the mandate of the
\n\tconstitutional requirement for public employment is respected,
\n\tthere cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it
\n\tis ordinarily not proper for courts whether acting under Article
\n\t226 of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to
\n\tdirect absorption in permanent employment of those who have been
\n\tengaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged
\n\tby the constitutional scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
Placing strong reliance on the above paragraph, Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted
\nthat Courts whether acting under Art. 226 of the Constitution or under Art.
\n32 of the Constitution, can direct the absorption in permanent employment
\nof those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection
\nas envisaged by the constitutional scheme, cannot at all be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V. R. Reddy submitted that the Corporation was established in the year
\n1972 and has been engaged in exploration of mineral resources of the
\ncountry and for this purpose they engaged workmen and that the activities
\nof the Corporation carried on at various places from time to time and the
\nproject established for this work are of temporary nature and as soon as
\nthe work is over, the establishment stands closed. It was further argued
\nthat the work extracted by the respondent-Corporation is primarily on
\nbehalf of the Government of India and other Public Sector Undertakings of
\nCentral and State Government and the respondent-Corporation has no work of
\nits own except the work that is assigned to them by various organizations.
\nAnd that after the exploration work is carried out by the Corporation,
\nfurther development and project work is taken over by the Government or
\nGovernment company concerned and the duties and responsibilities of  the
\nCorporation  end with the submission of the detailed exploration report
\nthat may be used by the development agency. He further submitted that the
\npersons employed in the project\/temporary establishment are employed mainly
\nfor the said project temporarily on contingent\/temporary basis and their
\ncontract of employment will terminate\/come to an end on completion of the
\nproject work and that the Corporation has specifically instructed all
\nconcerned that all appointments has to be made purely on
\ncontingent\/temporary basis duly accepted by the Head Office and appointment
\nis made on such terms. Arguing further, Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted that it is
\nthe usual practice of the Corporation to employ persons temporarily for
\nproject concerned and as soon as the project comes to an end, their
\nservices will automatically come to an end. He also invited our attention
\nto the 139th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 31.12.1998 and the
\ndecision taken thereon. Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted that the question of
\ncompassionate appointment does not arise because the answering respondent
\nhas no post available, neither they have financial resources to employ
\nthem. Concluding his arguments, Mr. V.R. Reddy submitted that the award of
\nthe Tribunal is not only perverse but without considering material facts
\nand considering irrelevant and impermissible matter and the High Court had
\ncorrectly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and this Court should
\nensure that the Tribunal acts within its jurisdiction and in accordance
\nwith law. He further submitted that the High Court has not committed any
\nerror of jurisdiction in interfering with the award and, therefore, no
\ninterference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Union,
\nat the time of reply to the arguments made by Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned
\ncounsel for the respondent-Corporation, invited our attention to some
\ndocuments which are relevant for the purpose of considering the claim of
\nregularization of the workmen. He invited our attention to proceeding No.2
\n(76)\/Pers dated 9.8.1990 which shows that one Tika Ram Mahato was
\ninterviewed for the post of D.T. IV. Candidates were requested for written
\ntest\/personal interview at the Corporation’s office at Ranchi along with
\nthe documents in original and photostat copies thereof etc. Another
\nproceeding of the same date was also for an interview for the post of D.T.
\nIV. As a sample, he drew our attention to the statement of E.P.F. Account
\nfor the year 1982-83 of Tika Ram Mahato which furnishes the details of the
\nmember’s contribution for the E.P.F. account. A sample wage slip was also
\nbrought to our notice. It relates to the employee, Tika Ram Mahato
\nmentioning the details in regard to the wages, rates of wages payable,
\ngross wages payable, deduction, if any, and actual wages paid. This
\ndocument contains the signature of the employee and also of the Project
\nManager of the Corporation. Our attention was also drawn to the Release
\nOrder dated 13.10.1990 by the Corporation. Certain skilled workers were
\nreleased from Ardhagram Project to R. East project which contains the leave
\ndetails of the workmen. The Assistant Manager, Area-III Calcutta was
\nrequested to remit the fund for Muster roll to the Project Manager, MECL R.
\nEast, Project for the above contingent workers and that the Senior Material
\nOfficer, MECL Calcutta was requested to send their shoes, Rain Coat and
\nGumboot etc. to R.East Project. The said Release Order further stated that
\nthe daily wages of the workmen have been paid up to 10.10.1990 and that the
\nfestival advance has been given to the persons (whose names have been
\nmentioned in the Release Order) in the month of September, 1990 and no
\ndeduction has been made from their salary. Another Office Order bearing No.
\n441\/3:29\/ADM\/Cal-08 dated 22.4.1988 was brought to our notice which says
\nthat in terms of the Central Headquarters, Nagpur, Office Order No.
\n31\/C\/Pers\/CAD.79 dated 17.6.85, the following contingent workers of
\nCalcutta area who have completed four years of continuous service in the
\npresent wage scale have been re-categorised to the next higher wage scale
\nw.e.f. 1.4.1988 and that the wages on re-categorisation will be fixed under
\nnormal Rules. This Office Order was issued with the approval of the Area
\nManager, Calcutta. The said Office Order gives the names of 15 skilled
\nworkers and date from which they are due to be re-categorised and the wage
\nscale in which area they are placed and the name of the Project etc.
\nCertain sample orders were also placed before us at the time of hearing.
\nOne sample order is issued by the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. (a
\nGovernment of India Enterprise) for Kanhan Project dated 5.1.1984 by which
\ntwo skilled operators and one un-skilled worker was transferred from Damua
\nto Tansi etc. The transfer of one K.G. Simon, unskilled worker was made on
\nrequest and no separate accommodation will be provided to him in the camp
\nTandsi.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.A. Bobde also placed before us few appointment orders available at
\npages 247, 248 and 249 of Vol.II of appeal paper book. The appointment
\norders state that the appointment will be purely on contingent\/temporary
\nbasis and the contract of employment will terminate on 19.4.1988 or
\ncompletion of work whichever is earlier. The contract of employment can be
\nrenewed for a further specific period, if deemed fit as per exigencies of
\nwork, by issue of a specific order and that the appointee will have to
\nperform any of the jobs or skilled\/unskilled category which may be assigned
\nto them from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
It is stated in the appointment order dated 3.7.1985 that the services of
\nShri Nand Kishore s\/o Sh. Shyam Lal in the Corporation, Bikaner Lignite
\nProject are purely temporary and his term of service is up to project life
\nor till such time he is replaced by Regular\/Pre’79 workers or any
\ncommunication, on the subject, received from CHQ whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
We may also usefully refer to the findings rendered by the Tribunal on the
\nbasis of the facts analysed from several affidavits filed before it, which
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(A) The Temporary employees have been working in Corporation for
\n\tmany years. Even some employees have still been working since the
\n\tyear 1979.\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tThose employees were transferred from one place to another during
\nthat period.\n<\/p>\n
(C) The temporary employees were promoted.\n<\/p>\n
(D)\tRegular pay scale was not given to those temporary employees, but
\nthey were given salary equal to daily wagers.\n<\/p>\n
(E)\tThose temporary employees are not been given other allowances and
\nfacilities of leave.\n<\/p>\n
(F)\tThe amount of Provident Fund was deducted from the salary of those
\ntemporary employees.\n<\/p>\n
(G)\tThe posts, on which temporary employees were kept, were given
\ndifferent names by the Management.\n<\/p>\n
(H)\tOld temporary employees are removed from services without giving
\nany notice or without paying any compensation.\n<\/p>\n
(I)\tThose employees are not given increments.”\n<\/p>\n
It is thus seen that the nature of work done by the Management is that they
\nuse work to explore the minerals in different parts of the country after
\ntaking over any project. According to the report of the year 1995-1996, the
\nCorporation had 50 projects. The Corporation is permanent and it has been
\ndoing the work continuously. When one project is completed, then work
\nstarts in another project. It does not appear that the work of the
\nCorporation would come to an end.\n<\/p>\n
Ample material was placed before us to show that the temporary\/contingent
\nemployees have been doing the work of permanent nature and the temporary
\nemployees are required to do work which was used to be done by skilled
\nemployees. The Annual Report of the Corporation for the year 1995-96 was
\nalso considered by the Tribunal. It appears from the Annual Report and the
\nMagazine of the Corporation that the Corporation has sufficient work and
\nthe financial condition of the Corporation is also satisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent is an industry governed by the provisions of Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 as well as the provisions of the Industrial Employment
\nStanding Orders Act, 1946. The Standing Orders defined temporary and casual
\nemployees as under:-\n<\/p>\n
A “TEMPORARY” WORKMAN IS A WORKMAN WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED FOR WORK WHICH IS
\nOF AN ESSENTIALLY TEMPORARY NATURE LIKELY TO BE FINISHED WITHIN A LIMITED
\nPERIOD’<\/p>\n
`A “CASUAL” WORKMAN IS A WOKRMAN WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS OF CASUAL LABOUR’<\/p>\n
Therefore, it will be clear that, the employees engaged and continued for
\nyears together cannot be termed as temporary or casuals.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent-management itself effected transfer of employees from one
\nproject to another and granted them benefit e.g. T.A., D.A. etc. The term
\ncontingent employee is totally unknown to Industrial Law. To deny the
\nbenefits available to regular employees, certain employees are termed as
\ncontingent workers. Once an employee completes 240 days, he is deemed to be
\na permanent employee. The term contingent employee is not included in
\nStanding Orders.\n<\/p>\n
Usual practice of the Corporation has been to keep contingent workmen for
\nlong duration of time and offering regular appointment periodically which
\nabruptly had stopped due to unfair attitude of the Management. Reduction in
\nwork leading to poor physical and financial performance has been a result
\nof incompetent and poor Management which cannot be allowed to play with the
\nfuture of thousands of employees and their families.\n<\/p>\n
The present reference was made in January, 1993. The employees working in
\nthe Corporation, it was submitted, used to do work far away from
\ncivilization and facilities and they did not get amenities with regard to
\nthe health and residence although such facilities are available to the
\npermanent workmen doing similar work. The workmen lived away from their
\nfamilies while working on a project and faced all types of hardships.\n<\/p>\n
It shall be proper to regularize the services of the workmen who have
\nworked for several years. However, the workmen in order to succeed will
\nhave to substantiate their claim as per the established principles of law.
\nWe feel it just and proper to issue the following directions to the
\nTribunal which is directed to consider the following directions and pass
\nappropriate orders after affording opportunities to both the parties:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Tribunal is directed to again scrutinize all the records
\nalready placed by the appellant-Union and also the records placed by the
\nManagement and discuss and deliberate with all the parties and ultimately
\narrive at a conclusion in regard to the genuineness and authenticity of
\neach and every claimant for regularization. This exercise shall be done
\nwithin nine months from the date of receipt of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSubject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry of the award, the
\nrespondent-Corporation should absorb them permanently and regularize their
\nservices, the persons to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of
\nwork which may become available to them on a perennial basis.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe respondent-Corporation may absorb on permanent basis only such
\nof those workmen who have not completed the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe respondent-Corporation are not required to absorb on permanent
\nbasis such of the workmen who are found medically unfit for such
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe absorption of the eligible workmen on a regular and permanent
\nbasis by the Corporation does not disable the Corporation from utilizing
\ntheir services for any other manual work for the Corporation upon its
\nneeds.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn the matter of absorption, the persons who have worked for longer
\nperiod as contingent workmen\/ad hoc\/temporary shall be preferred to those
\nwho have to be in shorter period of work.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe workman should have worked for more than 240 days in a year.
\nThe conduct and behaviour of the workman should be good.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to decide the claim of the workmen of
\nthe Union strictly in accordance with and in compliance with all the
\ndirections given in the judgment by the Constitution Bench in the case of
\nSecretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi<\/a>(3) & Ors., (supra) and in
\nparticular, paragraphs 53 and 12 relied on by the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the Union. The Tribunal is directed to dispose off the matter
\nafresh within 9 months from the date of receipt of this judgment without
\nbeing influenced by any of the observations made by us in this judgment.
\nBoth the parties are at liberty to submit and furnish the details in regard
\nto the names of the workmen, nature of the work, pay scales and the wages
\ndrawn by them from time to time and the transfers of the workmen made from
\ntime to time, from place to place and other necessary and requisite
\ndetails. The above details shall be submitted within two months from the
\ndate of the receipt of this judgment before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Till the matter is finally adjudicated by the Tribunal, the interim order
\npassed by this Court on 3.5.1999 shall be in operation.\n<\/p>\n
With the aforesaid directions, the appeals are disposed of. However, there
\nshall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2027-2028 of 2000 PETITIONER: Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees’ Union RESPONDENT: Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/07\/2006 BENCH: Dr. AR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5672,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006"},"wordCount":5672,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006","name":"Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T05:25:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-exploration-corporation-vs-mineral-exploration-corporation-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mineral Exploration Corporation … vs Mineral Exploration Corporation … on 26 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}