{"id":51193,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-06T11:56:34","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T06:26:34","slug":"o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                 1\n\n\n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                I.A. NOS. 11 AND 12 OF 2009\n\n                                 IN\n\n                CIVIL APPEAL NO.6607 OF 2005\n\n\n\nO.N.G.C. Ltd.                                         ... Appellants\n\n      Vs.\n\n\nEngineering Mazdoor Sangh                           ... Respondent\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    The    Oil    and   Natural         Gas    Corporation   Ltd.,<\/p>\n
(hereinafter    referred    to    as      `the    O.N.G.C.’)   is     a<\/p>\n
public sector undertaking which carries out geological<\/p>\n
and   geophysical     surveys     for       the    exploration       of<\/p>\n
petroleum.     Such work is seasonal and is confined to<\/p>\n
the period between November each year and the months<\/p>\n
of April or May of the following year.               Every year, at
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
the   commencement    of    the     new    season,   the   O.N.G.C.<\/p>\n
starts recruiting casual\/contingent\/temporary workmen<\/p>\n
for    specified     periods        and    their     services     are<\/p>\n
terminated at the end of the field season.                   Having<\/p>\n
regard   to   the   nature     of    the   work    involved,     such<\/p>\n
practice is said to have been in existence from 1956<\/p>\n
when the O.N.G.C. was incorporated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    With the increase in the workforce over the years,<\/p>\n
the aforesaid practice came to be questioned by the<\/p>\n
Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, the respondent herein, on<\/p>\n
behalf of its members who had been employed as such<\/p>\n
casual\/contingent      or      temporary       workmen     and     an<\/p>\n
industrial dispute was raised in the form of a demand<\/p>\n
for regularization of such workmen.                The dispute was<\/p>\n
ultimately referred by the Government of India to the<\/p>\n
Industrial Tribunal (Central) at Vadodara by way of<\/p>\n
Reference (ITC) No.6 of 1991 to decide whether the<\/p>\n
demand of the Respondent-Sangh for regularisation of<\/p>\n
such employees and for other consequential benefits,<\/p>\n
was justified and if the answer to the said question<\/p>\n
was yes, to what relief would                 the workmen          be<\/p>\n
entitled.\n<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.     The aforesaid Reference was answered in favour of<\/p>\n
the workmen though the Tribunal made it clear that the<\/p>\n
Reference was to be restricted to those workmen whose<\/p>\n
names appeared in the Schedule to the affidavit filed<\/p>\n
by the O.N.G.C.       The Tribunal directed the O.N.G.C. to<\/p>\n
consider     the    names      of    those    workmen    in     the    same<\/p>\n
descending order in which they were mentioned in the<\/p>\n
Schedule     as     and    when      vacancies       occurred    and    to<\/p>\n
regularize them provided they satisfied the prescribed<\/p>\n
educational qualifications and had also put in 240<\/p>\n
days    of   work    in    a   year.         The   O.N.G.C.     was    also<\/p>\n
directed to give such workmen who were eligible, age<\/p>\n
relaxation of one year for every completed 240 days of<\/p>\n
work in a year.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged<\/p>\n
by the Respondent-Sangh before the Gujarat High Court<\/p>\n
in Special Civil Application No.12850 of 1994.                          The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge hearing the matter observed that<\/p>\n
though regularization could not be effected in the<\/p>\n
absence      of    permanent        posts,     the    availability       of<\/p>\n
permanent     posts       is   a    fortuitous       circumstance      and
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
consequential confirmation is, therefore, uncertain,<\/p>\n
but that there was no bar against treating a person to<\/p>\n
be regular even if a permanent post was not available.<\/p>\n
The    learned          Single      Judge      accordingly               modified     the<\/p>\n
order of the Tribunal and directed the respondents to<\/p>\n
treat the employees who were covered by Standing Order<\/p>\n
2(ii) as regular employees.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      The   matter          was     taken        by    the    O.N.G.C.        to   the<\/p>\n
Division      Bench        in    Letters       Patent          Appeal       No.729     of<\/p>\n
1999.     During          the       pendency            of     the       Appeal,      the<\/p>\n
Respondent-Sangh gave-up its claim with regard to the<\/p>\n
first direction given by the learned Single Judge and<\/p>\n
only     pressed          for       implementation                  of    the     second<\/p>\n
direction.              Similarly,        the       O.N.G.C.             gave   up    its<\/p>\n
challenge          in      respect        of        the        third        direction.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,            the      controversy             in     the       appeal      was<\/p>\n
restricted to the challenge in respect of the second<\/p>\n
direction      only.          While    granting              such    relief     to    the<\/p>\n
parties       to     the        appeal,       the        Division         Bench      also<\/p>\n
directed       that        the        workmen           concerned          should      be<\/p>\n
notionally         treated       as    regularized             with       effect     from<\/p>\n
1.5.1999.          It was clarified that the directions given
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
would apply to the surviving employees within the 189<\/p>\n
employees who had been accepted as having acquired<\/p>\n
temporary status and whose employment had been saved<\/p>\n
by the order dated 30.5.1999 in Complaint (ITC) No.5<\/p>\n
of 1993.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    When the matter was brought to this Court by the<\/p>\n
O.N.G.C.,    this     Court    restored   the    order     of    the<\/p>\n
Tribunal    whereby    the    153   workmen   identified    to    be<\/p>\n
eligible for regularization were to be treated at par<\/p>\n
with the regular employees and their services were to<\/p>\n
be treated as having been notionally regularized from<\/p>\n
1.5.1999. While disposing of the appeal on 20.11.2006,<\/p>\n
this Court injuncted the respondents from making any<\/p>\n
recruitment from outside till such time as the 153<\/p>\n
workmen were        absorbed against regular vacancies in<\/p>\n
the concerned category.        A further direction was given<\/p>\n
that even in matters of seasonal employment, the said<\/p>\n
153 workmen or those who remained after regularization<\/p>\n
from time to time, were to be considered first for<\/p>\n
employment before any other workmen were engaged for<\/p>\n
the same type of work in the field.             This Court also<\/p>\n
directed the        O.N.G.C. to make a serious attempt to
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
regularize the services of the workmen concerned in<\/p>\n
terms of the order passed by the Tribunal as quickly<\/p>\n
as possible, but preferably within a period of two<\/p>\n
years from the date of the order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     While the aforesaid judgment was delivered on<\/p>\n
20.11.2006, it was only on 23.2.2009 that I.A. No.11<\/p>\n
of   2009   was    filed    and   I.A.         No.12    of     2009    was,<\/p>\n
thereafter, filed on 9.4.2009 in Civil Appeal No.6607<\/p>\n
of 2005.     While I.A. No.11 of 2009 has been filed for<\/p>\n
a modification of the order passed by this Court on<\/p>\n
20.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No.6607 of 2005, I.A. No.12<\/p>\n
of 2009 has been filed by the Respondent-Sangh, inter<\/p>\n
alia, for suitable directions to be issued to the<\/p>\n
O.N.G.C. to absorb all the remaining workmen on the<\/p>\n
completion of two years, as directed by this Court in<\/p>\n
its judgment dated 20.11.2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   When    the     applications          were        taken     up     for<\/p>\n
consideration, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate,   who    appeared    for       the    O.N.G.C.,       submitted<\/p>\n
that while implementing the aforesaid directions given<\/p>\n
by   this   Court,    the     O.N.G.C.         was     faced    with    an
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
industrial       dispute      from    candidates          who    were     also<\/p>\n
waiting      for       appointment         from     the     compassionate<\/p>\n
appointment        category.          Mr.     Ramachandran        submitted<\/p>\n
that    no   person       from   the       said     category      could     be<\/p>\n
appointed over the last 9 years having regard to the<\/p>\n
pendency of the proceedings before the Court and that<\/p>\n
apart from the 153 workmen, who were before the Court,<\/p>\n
the     Court      should     also     allow        O.N.G.C.      to      make<\/p>\n
appointments         from     the      compassionate            appointment<\/p>\n
category.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     Mr. Ramachandran also urged that, in fact, 138<\/p>\n
workmen were admittedly covered by the Award of the<\/p>\n
Industrial Tribunal.           In order to implement the Award,<\/p>\n
as    also   the    judgment     of    this       Court,   the    said     138<\/p>\n
workmen were invited by the O.N.G.C. to attend the<\/p>\n
selection       process     strictly        in    accordance      with     the<\/p>\n
directions issued by this Court.                      Mr. Ramachandran<\/p>\n
submitted       that    137   workmen       attended       the    selection<\/p>\n
process and only 77 of the said workmen were found<\/p>\n
qualified and eligible for being empanelled for jobs<\/p>\n
in different categories.               Learned counsel urged that<\/p>\n
60     workmen     were     found     to     be    unfit    for     regular
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
employment.         He also submitted that out of the 77<\/p>\n
workmen found to be eligible, 58 workmen had been<\/p>\n
given appointment while 19 workmen were kept on a<\/p>\n
panel    and      were   still    left       to   be   absorbed    against<\/p>\n
regular vacancies.               He urged that having regard to<\/p>\n
the complexity of the matter, serious thought had been<\/p>\n
given as to how the controversy could be resolved.<\/p>\n
Mr. Ramachandran submitted that one of the proposed<\/p>\n
methods      to    resolve       the   issue       was   to    offer        a<\/p>\n
settlement package to the 19 workmen, who were yet to<\/p>\n
be    absorbed     against   regular          vacancies,      in   lieu    of<\/p>\n
absorption, and to permit appointment of dependents of<\/p>\n
deceased employees on compassionate grounds.                              The<\/p>\n
compensation package         is as follows :-<\/p>\n
                             “COMPENSATION PACKAGE\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        1.     Amount equivalent to two month’s wages for
\n               each completed year of service in ONGC or
\n               amount equivalent to wages of left over
\n               period upto 60 years of age, whichever is
\n               less.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2.     Provident Fund.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.     Amount of wages for balance period of leave
\n               at credit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.    Mr. Ramchandran submitted that on account of the<\/p>\n
ban imposed by this Court on recruitment before the<\/p>\n
153 employees could be absorbed, no fresh appointments
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
could     be   given     in     the    category       of     compassionate<\/p>\n
appointment,         which     has    created     growing         resentment<\/p>\n
among other categories of workmen who were waiting for<\/p>\n
appointment in similar posts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.     The relief prayed for by the O.N.G.C. for leave<\/p>\n
to    offer     the     compensation        package          in    lieu       of<\/p>\n
appointment was opposed on behalf of the said workmen,<\/p>\n
as also the prayer made for leave to appoint persons<\/p>\n
from the compassionate appointment category without<\/p>\n
absorbing      all     the     workmen,     who       were     yet      to    be<\/p>\n
absorbed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Mr.      Ranjit        Kumar,    learned        Senior       Advocate,<\/p>\n
appearing      for     the    Sangh,   submitted       that       the    order<\/p>\n
passed by this Court on 20.11.2006, and subsequently<\/p>\n
clarified on 8.2.2008 was very clear and unambiguous.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that the rights of the 153<\/p>\n
workmen        identified         before        the        Tribunal          had<\/p>\n
crystallized in the order of the Tribunal, which was<\/p>\n
subsequently upheld by this Court and till such time<\/p>\n
as they were absorbed, no fresh appointments could be<\/p>\n
given   from     any    other    category,       notwithstanding             the
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
fact that there were other candidates waiting to be<\/p>\n
appointed on compassionate grounds.                         Mr. Ranjit Kumar<\/p>\n
also     submitted       that     as   far       as     Mr.        Ramchandran’s<\/p>\n
contention that 60 workmen were found to be ineligible<\/p>\n
for appointment,                the same could not be accepted<\/p>\n
having      regard   to     the     fact     that      the     Award        of   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and the order passed by this Court clearly<\/p>\n
indicated that the Reference was to be restricted to<\/p>\n
the workmen, whose names appeared in the schedule to<\/p>\n
the affidavit,           which was ultimately identified as far<\/p>\n
as    153   workmen       are     concerned.            Mr.        Ranjit    Kumar<\/p>\n
pointed out that ONGC was directed that as and when<\/p>\n
vacancies to the regular posts arose, they would be<\/p>\n
required to consider the names of those workmen in the<\/p>\n
same descending order in which they were mentioned in<\/p>\n
the    schedule      and     that      they      would        be     regularized<\/p>\n
provided          they     satisfied       the      specific         prescribed<\/p>\n
educational       qualifications.             It      was     also    indicated<\/p>\n
that for each 240 days work in a year put in by each<\/p>\n
workmen, ONGC would give such workmen, age relaxation<\/p>\n
of one year.               Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that on<\/p>\n
account      of    the      ban     imposed        by       this      Court      on
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
recruitment before the 153 employees were absorbed, no<\/p>\n
fresh appointments could be given in the category of<\/p>\n
compassionate appointment, which has created growing<\/p>\n
resentment amongst other categories of workmen, who<\/p>\n
were also waiting for appointment for similar posts.<\/p>\n
13.   The relief brought for by the ONGC for leave to<\/p>\n
offer    the       compensation          package        in    lieu        of    the<\/p>\n
appointment was opposed on behalf of the said workmen,<\/p>\n
as also the prayer made for leave to appoint persons<\/p>\n
from the compassionate appointment category without<\/p>\n
absorbing        all     the     workmen,         who   were        yet    to    be<\/p>\n
absorbed.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Mr.        Ranjit       Kumar,        learned     Senior        advocate,<\/p>\n
appearing        for    the     Sangh,      submitted        that    the       order<\/p>\n
passed      by    this    Court        on    20th     November,       2006      and<\/p>\n
subsequently, clarified on 08\/02\/2008, was very clear<\/p>\n
and unambiguous.              Learned counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
rights      of    the     153    workmen          identified        before      the<\/p>\n
Tribunal         had    crystallised             in   the    order        of    the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, which was subsequently upheld by this Court<\/p>\n
and till such            time as they were absorbed, no fresh<\/p>\n
appointments could be given from any other category,
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
notwithstanding         the     fact     that       there     were        other<\/p>\n
candidates waiting to be appointed on compassionate<\/p>\n
grounds.        Mr. Ranjit Kumar also submitted that as far<\/p>\n
as Mr. Ramachandran’s contention that 60 workmen who<\/p>\n
were   found      to    be    ineligible      for     appointment          were<\/p>\n
concerned,        the same could not be accepted having<\/p>\n
regard to the fact that the Award of the Tribunal and<\/p>\n
the order passed by this Court clearly indicated that<\/p>\n
the Reference was to be restricted to the workmen<\/p>\n
whose names appeared in the schedule to the affidavit<\/p>\n
comprising       153    workmen.            Mr.     Ranjit    Kumar       also<\/p>\n
referred to paragraph 16 of our judgment dated 20th<\/p>\n
November, 2006, wherein we had categorically indicated<\/p>\n
that till such time as 153 workmen were not absorbed<\/p>\n
against     the     regular      categories          in     the   category<\/p>\n
concerned, no recruitment from outside would be made<\/p>\n
by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Mr. Ranjit Kumar urged that the submission now<\/p>\n
being made on behalf of the ONGC runs counter to the<\/p>\n
directions contained in the Award of the Tribunal, as<\/p>\n
upheld     by    this    Court     and       also     contrary       to    the<\/p>\n
directions given by this Court in support thereof.
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
16.    From the order dated 20th November, 2006, it is<\/p>\n
quiet obvious that the intention of this Court was<\/p>\n
that   till      such    time     as    the    153    workmen,     who     were<\/p>\n
identified after the Award of the Tribunal were not<\/p>\n
absorbed against regular vacancies in the concerned<\/p>\n
category, no recruitment from outside could be made by<\/p>\n
the    applicant        ONGC    in     the    same    or   similar    posts.<\/p>\n
Similar provision was also made with regard to the<\/p>\n
workmen, who were to be employed on a seasonal basis.<\/p>\n
However,      we    must        also    record       Mr.   Ramachandran’s<\/p>\n
submissions at this stage that out of the 153 persons<\/p>\n
whose names were available, 15 persons were found to<\/p>\n
be not eligible for consideration, leaving 138 persons<\/p>\n
who were eligible for consideration in terms of the<\/p>\n
Award of the learned Tribunal and the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.     Accordingly,            at     least    the    case   of     the    138<\/p>\n
workmen, who had, in fact, been found to be eligible<\/p>\n
for appointment had to be considered.<\/p>\n
 18.     However,        the    picture,       as     portrayed      by    Mr.<\/p>\n
 Ramchandran, is not as grave as has been made out by<\/p>\n
 him     since     all    the    persons       concerned,     namely,       the
\n                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
candidates, who are yet to be absorbed in regular<\/p>\n
vacancies      in   terms      of    the      Tribunal’s     order,      as<\/p>\n
upheld    by    this    Court   on     20th    November,     2006,      and<\/p>\n
those    waiting       for   compassionate         appointment,        have<\/p>\n
been provided with employment, as contingent staff.<\/p>\n
There should not have been any difficulty for the<\/p>\n
ONGC to implement the Tribunal’s Award in respect of<\/p>\n
the 137 workmen, who were found eligible by ONGC<\/p>\n
within the period of two years after the passing of<\/p>\n
the Award.          Apart from the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal    and     this     Court,    equity      demands      that    the<\/p>\n
workmen who have been in continuous employment as<\/p>\n
contingent workmen from 1992, should be considered<\/p>\n
first for regularisation before those, who come in<\/p>\n
at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
19.       At this juncture, we may also refer to the<\/p>\n
submission which had been made on behalf of one of<\/p>\n
the     intervenors from the compassionate appointment<\/p>\n
category that there were large number of vacancies<\/p>\n
available in which all could be accommodated.                          Mr.<\/p>\n
Ramachandran has denied such submission and in the<\/p>\n
affidavit      filed    with    regard        to   the   copy    of    the
\n                                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
Minutes of the 71st meeting of the Joint Committee, it<\/p>\n
has been pointed out that the number of vacancies<\/p>\n
indicated        represented          vacancies       in      various<\/p>\n
departments and particularly of a technical nature<\/p>\n
and did not necessarily include the vacancies against<\/p>\n
which appointments were to be made as far as the<\/p>\n
concerned   workmen      and    the    compassionate       appointees<\/p>\n
were concerned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   From the order dated 20.11.2006 it was clearly<\/p>\n
the intention of this Court that till such time as the<\/p>\n
153    workmen    were    not     absorbed         against    regular<\/p>\n
vacancies in the concerned category, no recruitment<\/p>\n
could be made by the applicant.             Similar provision was<\/p>\n
also made with regard to the workmen who were employed<\/p>\n
on seasonal basis.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 21.    Having    considered      the       submissions      made    on<\/p>\n
 behalf of the O.N.G.C. and the Mazdoor Sangh, we are<\/p>\n
 not inclined to grant the prayer made on behalf of<\/p>\n
 the O.N.G.C. for leave to appoint candidates from<\/p>\n
 the    compassionate     category         group   before    all    the
\n                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
workmen who were identified after the Award of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal    to    be   eligible     for    appointment,   are<\/p>\n
absorbed, as that would not only go against the<\/p>\n
order passed by us on 20th November, 2006, but would<\/p>\n
also amount to modifying the same.\n<\/p>\n
 22.        While rejecting the prayer made on behalf<\/p>\n
 of the ONGC, we, however, make it clear that such<\/p>\n
 rejection would not prevent the ONGC from offering<\/p>\n
 the compensation package either to those workmen<\/p>\n
 from amongst the 137 workmen, who are yet to be<\/p>\n
 absorbed    or   those   waiting    for   appointment    from<\/p>\n
 the compassionate appointment category.             If such<\/p>\n
 package is accepted by any of those candidates,<\/p>\n
 both the ONGC as well as such candidate will be at<\/p>\n
 liberty to act on the basis of such acceptance and<\/p>\n
 shall not be fettered in any way by the directions<\/p>\n
 given either by the Tribunal or this Court on 29th<\/p>\n
 November, 2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 23.   This order shall dispose of I.A. Nos.11 and<\/p>\n
 12 of 2009, but we also make it clear that we are<\/p>\n
 not passing any orders in terms of prayer (b) of
\n                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
   I.A. No.12 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                …………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                              ……………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nSeptember 17, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                               18<\/span><\/p>\n
            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
\n              I.A. NOS. 11 AND 12 OF 2009
\n                           IN
\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO.6607 OF 2005<\/p>\n
O.N.G.C. Ltd.                                           … Appellants<\/p>\n
      Vs.\n<\/p>\n
\nEngineering Mazdoor Sangh                            … Respondent<\/p>\n
                       O R D E R<\/p>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
       In   the   reportable    order     dated               17\/09\/2009,<\/p>\n
  paragraphs 13 and 14 stand deleted and paragraph<\/p>\n
  Nos.15 to 23 are re-numbered as paragraph Nos. 13<\/p>\n
  to 21.\n<\/p>\n
       The Registry is directed to issue Corrigendum<\/p>\n
  accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          …………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                        ……………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\n                      19<\/span><\/p>\n
New Delhi
\n            November 13, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 11 AND 12 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6607 OF 2005 O.N.G.C. Ltd. … Appellants Vs. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh … Respondent […]<\/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-51193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nO.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T06:26:34+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T06:26:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2803,\"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\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T06:26:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - 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\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-06T06:26:34+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T06:26:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":2803,"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\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009","name":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T06:26:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-n-g-c-ltd-vs-engineering-mazdoor-sangh-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.N.G.C. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/51193","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=51193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}