IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 20646 of 2010

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Saikat Ray Chowdhury,

Mr. Aritra Ghosh.

For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dinendra Nath Chatterjee,

Mr. Madhusudan Mandal .

Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026

Judgment delivered on : 18.02.2026

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award

dated 26

th

May, 2010 Reference no. 38 of 1998 passed by the

learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Asansol.

2. Vide the impugned order the learned Tribunal held as follows:-

“In the above circumstances, it can safely be

concluded that the action of the Management of

Bhojudih Coal Washery of BCCL in not

departmentalizing the 16 referred workmen employed

in the job of maintenance of Water Supply System at

Page 2

Intake well Bhojudih Coal Washery is not legal and

justified. The workmen are entitled to be

departmentalized in appropriate grade i.e. grade-I

General Mazdoor and to be treated as Employee of

the BCCL from the date of their engagement and shall

be entitled to all service benefits as admissible to the

regular employees. Monetary benefits accruing out of

it shall be disbursed within two months of the

notification pending regularization of service papers.

Hence it is ordered

ORDER

Let an award as above be and same is passed. Send

the copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Sd/-

Presiding Officer”

3. Both parties have filed their written notes in the present case.

4. The petitioners’ case herein is that the industrial Tribunal in

accordance to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Act, 1970, read with the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, has/had no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned

Award. The issue in the reference before the Tribunal was as

follows:-

“THE SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bhojudih Coal Washery

of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is justified in not

departmentalising the 16 contract workers (as shown

in the annexure) employed in the job of maintenance

of water Supply System at Intake Well at Bhojudih

Coal Washery? If not, to what relief are the workmen

concerned entitled and from which date ?"

Page 3

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the tribunal adjudicating the

issue under reference, did not deal with the question while

passing the impugned award.

6. It is submitted that under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government could refer

any dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal only

where the matters are related to/specified in the Second

Schedule or Third Schedule of the said Act.

7. It is further stated that the appropriate Government, Central or

State, before issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, had to

take into consideration some factors including whether the job

contemplated by the contract labourers is of perennial in

nature or not.

8. It is thus submitted that the said tribunal had no jurisdiction

to pass the said award and it was only the appropriate

government who is the authority to consider the case under

Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act

1970).

9. Considering the point of jurisdiction it is on record that the

reference made to the tribunal, which adjudicated the same,

was made by the appropriate government and as such the point

of jurisdiction raised is decided in the affirmative.

Page 4

10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 16 contract

labourers were engaged by different contractors during the

summer season, only to channelize the water to the intake well

through temporary channels, when the upstream waters of

river Damodar is far away.

11. The said workers were also temporarily engaged in the job of

distillation of intake well, annual maintenance of intake well

pump and maintenance of pipeline from intake well to siding

pool and cleaning of foot valve of the pump and its

surroundings, as and when required and it is thus stated that

the said job did not exist continuously throughout the year

and was not permanent in nature.

12. It is stated that the respondent Union in this case has claimed

the absorption of the contract workers upon comparing their

work under Bhojudih Coal Washery with that of Dugda Coal

Washery and Patherdih Coal Washery. The Union on behalf of

the contract workers claimed that since contract workers of the

Dugda Coal Washery and the Patherdih Coal Washery were

made permanent, their employment was also required to be

made permanent on that ground only.

13. In support of the said claim of the petitioner’s case is that the

case of Dugda Coal Washery and the Patherdih Coal Washery is

just the reverse case of Bhojudih Coal Washery, as the said

Page 5

washeries are situated at the upstream of river Damodar and

work which exists there is not seasonal in nature, but

throughout the year.

14. It is further stated that departmentalization of outside workers,

cannot form the subject matter of Industrial Dispute as there is

no Employer-Employee relationship and the petitioner thus

prays for setting aside of the said award which it is submitted,

is not in accordance with law.

15. The respondent no. 3 union herein on behalf of the 16 workmen

has argued on filing its written notes, that the facts of this case

is that the workers namely Charan Bouri with 15 other workers

have been working as contract labour, who are engaged by

different contractors and the said workers are workin g

continuously from the start of the job of maintenance for water

supply system at the intake well of Bhojudih Coal Washery of

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited from the year 1983.

16. That the Bhojudih Coal Washery was a unit under the Central

Coal Washery organization of erstwhile Hindustan Steel Limited

(HSL) and then the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). It was

brought under the Administrative control of Bharat Cooking

Coal Limited. The washery was established for washing of raw

coal for supply to different steel plants.

Page 6

17. Before establishment of the organization, water supply was

being made available from intake well at the Bank of river

Damodar to Bhojudih Coal Washery Plant and also for supply

of drinking water to colonies of the company. Uninterrupted

working for supply of water is a permanent nature of job,

the same set of labours which include the referred workmen

worked all the time, though as many as nine contractors

were changed but they presently work with the same employer.

18. The union has urged for direction to the management for

regularization of the service of the referred workmen by taking

them on the permanent roll of the company as category -1

general mazdoor and allow them all the benefits with effect from

01.01.1983.

19. That the said workers are temporarily engaged for minimum

wages of the intake pumps and the well and the said temporary

jobs have not been prohibited by the Government under the

Contract Labour Act.

20. The workmen are working under different contractors and facts

also remain undisputed that the workmen have been working

since 1983 to till now in the same job under different

contractors of the employer.

Page 7

21. Some workers have died while in service. All the 16 workers

have been engaged on the job of maintenance of continuous

water supply system of intake well at Bhojudih Coal Washer.

22. This job is of permanent and perennial nature. These workmen

have been continuously working from 1

st

June 1983 till date.

The regular supply of water to the plaint as also to the resident

of the Colony of Bhojudih Coal Washer is entirely dependent on

this system and this system is continuous and perennial in

nature.

23. Thus Bhojudih Coal Washery is the principal employer.

Bhojudih Coal Washery awards the contract and the

contractors engage the labour. The same set of labour has been

engaged on the said job for the last 40 years continuously.

Thus they are due for regularization against permanent job on

equal pay as that of regular company employee engaged by

Bhojudih Coal Washery.

24. In support of their contentions that the industrial tribunal has

jurisdiction to decide a dispute under Section 10(1) of the ID

Act. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in (2015) 9 SCC 786, Durgapur Casual

Workers Union versus Food Corporation of India; (2010) 9

Page 8

SCC 247 State of Karnataka and Ors. Versus M.L. Kesari

and Ors. for regularization and few judgments.

25. From the materials on record it is evident that:-

i. 16 referred workmen are employed with the petitioner

company since 1983 (for over 40 year) though through

various contractors, who were being admittedly engaged

by the petitioner company as contractors, who in turn

employed labour/workmen.

ii. It is claimed by the respondent 16 referred workmen that

they stand on the same footing as the workers of other

washeries and as such are entitled to the same benefits

as them, though the petitioners have tried to put forward

a case that these workmen are engaged on seasonal basis

and as such cannot be considered for benefits similar to

regular employees of the company, leave aside the claim

of regularization.

iii. From the impugned order, it appears that the issues

framed by the tribunal are as follows:-

“1) Whethere for the working of the workmen

under different Contractors of the BCCL is to be

considered as Employer Employee relation

between the parties?

Page 9

2) Whether the workmen have been

working against permanent or temporary

nature of job.

3) Whether the workmen are entitled to be

regularized in the service.”

iv. Findings of the tribunal in the impugned award are:-

“a) There is no dispute, that the Contractor under

whom the workmen have been working are the

Contractors of the BCCL and that same set of

workers which include the referred workmen have

been continuously working in the same job and at

same place since the year 1983.

b) The oral evidence of the P/w 1 goes to show that

workers were engaged in supply of water to the

plant for production of goods to the benefit of the

Management. Supply of water is absolutely

required for working of the washery as well as for

drinking purpose. Evidence of the witness for the

union, Haradhon Mudi (ww-1) on this score

remained unchallenged. In view of the above there

is no persistent of doubt about the permanent

nature of the works in which the referred workmen

have been engaged.

Page 10

c) The Management has failed to prove that the works

are prohibited under the C.L.R.A. Act. Or at all that

the contractors have been issued with the license

under the said Act to consider the workmen as

contract labours under them. There is thus reason

to believe that the real facts are being camouflaged.

There is a clear admission by the MW-1 that the

workmen have been engaged in supply of water to

the plant for production of goods for the benefit of

the establishment.

d) The presence, of intermediate contractors with

whom alone the workers have immediate or direct

relationship in contract is of consequence, when on

lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of tutors

governing employment, decern the naked Truth,

though drepped in different perfect paper

arrangement that the real employer is the

management "xxxx".”

26. The Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited vs.

Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr., Civil

Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.

26634-26635 of 2019), decided on February 07, 2023,

held:-

Page 11

“13. …………..it is not necessary to regularize

the services of the workmen who have died, retired or

still in employment and even in the absence of

such a status, they shall be entitled to the

following service benefits:

(i) Pay-scale at par with the employees who are

on the roll of the appellant – Authority;

(ii) The benefit of provident fund;

(iii) The benefit under the Gratuity Act;

(iv) The other service benefits including the

medical allowance which the appellant –

Authority has granted to its employees under

the Service Regulations or through

administrative decisions from time to time.

Such benefits will be admissible from the cut-

off date determined by the Tribunal.”

5. In Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), the

Supreme Court further held:-

“12. The issue whether the workmen were

employed by IISCO or they were contractual

employees is essentially a question of fact which has

been examined in depth by the Tribunal, learned

Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the

High Court, holding concurrently that the workmen

were actually the employees of the appellant –

Authority. Such a finding of fact does not warrant for

any interference by this Court.

14. Let the arrears of these benefits be released

to the respondent – workmen within four months from

the date of receipt of bank account details of the

individual employees/their legal heirs. In case the

service benefits are released within four months, no

interest shall be paid to the respondent – workmen.

In case the payments are delayed, the workmen will

be entitled for interest at the rate of 7% p.a.”

27. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad

Jakhmola and Ors., (2019) 13 SCC 82, the Supreme Court

held:-

“24. We may hasten to add that this view of

the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai

Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai

Page 12

Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 :

(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as follows : (SCC pp.

437-38, para 65)

“65. Thus, it can be concluded that the

relevant factors to be taken into consideration

to establish an employer -employee

relationship would include, inter alia:

(i) who appoints the workers;

(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;

(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;

(iv) who can take disciplinary action;

(v) whether there is continuity of service; and

(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e.

whether there exists complete control and

supervision.

As regards extent of control and

supervision, we have already taken note of the

observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills

case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat

Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16]

, International Airport Authority of India

case [International Airport Authority of

India v. International Air Cargo Workers'

Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC

(L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO

Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756

: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] .”

28. In Hussainbhai, Calicut vs The Alath Factory Thezhilali

Union, Kozhikode & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 257, the Supreme

Court held:-

“Held:

The facts found are that the work done by the

workmen was an integral part of the industry

concerned, that the raw material was supplied

by the management, that the factory premises

belonged to the management, that the

equipment used also belonged to the

management, and that the finished product

Page 13

was taken by the management for its own

trade. The workmen were broadly under the

control of the management and defective

articles were directed to be rectified by the

management. This concatenation of

circumstances is conclusive that the workmen

were the workmen of the petitioner.

(Para 2)

The true test is where a worker or group

of workers labour to produce goods or services

and these goods or services are for the

business of another, that other is, in fact, the

employer. He has economic control over the

workers' subsistence, skill and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off,

the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractors with whom alone the

workers have immediate or direct relation-ship

ex contractu is of no consequence, when, on

lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of

factors governing employment, the naked truth

is discerned, and especially since it is one of

the myriad devices resorted to by manage -

ments to avoid the responsibility when labour

legislation casts welfare obligations on the real

employer based on Arts. 38, 32, 42, 43 and

43A. If livelihood of the workmen substantially

depends on labour rendered to produce goods

and services for the benefit and satisfaction of

enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or

the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot

snap the real life-bond. If, however, there is

total dissociation, in fact, between the

disowning management and the aggrieved

workmen, the employer is in substance and in

real life-terms, by another.

(Paras 5 to 7)

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Union of

India, (1974) 4 SCC 43: 1974 SCC (L & S) 205,

followed.”

Page 14

29. In Subramaniam S. Arjun & 15 Ors. vs Oil & Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. And………., decided on 23 August, 2023,

the Bombay High Court held:-

“59. Having dealt with the rival submissions, this

Court in exercise of plenary writ jurisdiction must look

at the substance of the matter and where justice of

the case lies. The petitioners rendered services as

contract workmen to ONGC in excess of 15 years, on

an average. The petitioners services were so

utilized through different contractors. The

contractors changed but the principal employer

remained constant. ONGC had entered into a MoU

to make a provision to extend the gratuity benefit to

the contract-workmen. In this setting of the matter, if

the submission on behalf of ONGC is to be accepted,

the contractor through whom the services of the

petitioner were being used on the date of the

cessation of employment, would alone be the person

liable to pay the gratuity for the entire service tenure

and that would bring in the element of the liability of

the last contractor to pay gratuity even in respect of

the past service for which the contract employees

were not employed by him. Such liability can only be

fastened either under a statutory obligation or

contractual stipulation. No statutory prescription to

cover such liability could be pressed into service by

the ONGC. Nor the Court finds any such contract

between last contractor and the predecessor

contractors, or for that matter, between the last

contractor and ONGC. In contrast, in the case

of Cummins (supra), the successor contractor had

incurred an obligation pursuant to a contract with the

predecessor contractor, to pay gratuity.

60. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that

the Appellate Authority was in error in setting aside

the order passed by the Controlling Authority

fastening the liability on ONGC to pay gratuity.

Petitions thus deserve to be allowed.”

Page 15

30. In Indian Institute of Technology Bombay vs Tanaji Babaji

Lad & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2024, the Bombay

High Court held:-

“31) When IIT, Bombay is specific in directing deposit

of ESIC and PF contribution, it is incomprehensible as

to why liability for payment of gratuity was no t

specifically incorporated in the Work Order. It appears

that in the description of work appended to the

contract, there is a condition for continuous

deployment of workmen for maximum 89 days

excluding Sundays and holidays against various

requisition issued by the Estate Office. Far from

engaging different workers for maximum tenure of 89

days, the Respondents continued to work with IIT,

Bombay notwithstanding replacement of various

contractors. In fact, if the tests laid down by the Apex

Court in Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air

India Ltd.& Ors, AIRONLINE 2013 SC 652,

Respondent would be in a position to satisfy most of

the said tests for the purpose of establishment of

employer –employee relationship even under the ID

Act. Since the enquiry int o existence of

employeremployee relationship in the context of PG

Act is summary or preliminary in nature, which does

not bind parties outside the framework of PG Act, it is

not necessary to satisfy all the tests laid down in

Balwant Rai Saluja (supra). Be that as it may. It is

not necessary to delve deeper into the terms and

conditions of Work Order to which Respondents are

not parties. The present case involves peculiar facts

and circumstances, under which some workmen

have continued with IIT -Bombay t hrough

multiple contractors. I am therefore, convinced

that for the limited purpose of payment of

gratuity, Respondents are required to be treated

as employee of IIT Bombay. No interference is

therefore warranted in the impugned orders. ”

31. In Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Air India Ltd. &

Ors., 2014 (9) SCC 407, on decided on 25 August, 2014, the

Supreme Court held:-

Page 16

“1. In view of the difference of opinion by two learned

Judges, and by referral order dated 13.11.2013 of

this Court, these Civil Appeals are placed before us for

our consideration and decision. The question before

this bench is whether the workmen engaged in

statutory canteens, through a contractor, could be

treated as employees of the principal establishment.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the

learned Judges differed in their opinion regarding the

liability of the principal employer running statutory

canteens and further regarding the status of the

workmen engaged thereof. The learned Judges

differed on the aspect of supervision and control

which was exercised by the Air India Ltd. (for short,

“the Air India”)- respondent No. 1, and the Hotel

Corporations of India Ltd. (for short, “the HCI”)-

respondent No. 2, over the said workmen employed in

these canteens. The learned Judges also had varying

interpretations regarding the status of the HCI as a

sham and camouflage subsidiary by the Air India

created mainly to deprive the legitimate statutory and

fundamental rights of the concerned workmen and the

necessity to pierce the veil to ascertain their relation

with the principal employer.

84. In our considered view, and in light of the

principles applied in the Haldia case (supra), such

control would have nothing to do with either the

appointment, dismissal or removal from service, or the

taking of disciplinary action against the workmen

working in the canteen. The mere fact that the Air

India has a certain degree of control over the HCI,

does not mean that the employees workin g in the

canteen are the Air India’s employees. The Air India

exercises control that is in the nature of supervision.

Being the primary shareholder in the HCI and

shouldering certain financial burdens such as

providing with the subsidies as required by law, the

Air India would be entitled to have an opinion or a say

in ensuring effective utilization of resources, monetary

or otherwise. The said supervision or control would

appear to be merely to ensure due maintenance of

standards and quality in the said canteen.

85. Therefore, in our considered view and in light of

the above, the appellants-workmen could not be said

to be under the effective and absolute control of Air

Page 17

India. The Air India merely has control of supervision

over the working of the given statutory canteen.

Issues regarding appointment of the said workmen,

their dismissal, payment of their salaries, etc. are

within the control of the HCI. It cannot be then said

that the appellants are the workmen of Air India and

therefore are entitled to regularization of their

services.

86. It would be pertinent to mention, at this stage,

that there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of

appointment, experience, qualifications, etc., between

the regular employees of the Air India and the

workers of the gi ven canteen. Therefore, the

appellants-workmen cannot be placed at the same

footing as the Air India’s regular employees, and

thereby claim the same benefits as bestowed upon

the latter. It would also be gainsaid to note the fact

that the appellants-herein made no claim or prayer

against either of the other respondents, that is, the

HCI or the Chefair.

87. In terms of the above, the reference is answered

as follows :

The workers engaged by a contractor to work in the

statutory canteen of a factory would be the workers of

the said factory, but only for the purposes of the Act,

1948, and not for other purposes, and further for the

said workers, to be called the employees of the

factory for all purposes, they would need to satisfy

the test of employer-employee relationship and it must

be shown that the employer exercises absolute and

effective control over the said workers.”

32. In the present case:-

a) The workers were appointed through contractors.

b) Wages was paid by the contractors.

c) The workers though working under one contractor

after another, worked with the same principa l

employer, the petitioner herein.

Page 18

33. In Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors., (2024 INSC 1034),

decided on 20

th

December 2024, the Supreme Court held:-

“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government institutions, often

face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the

foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have

been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they

have increasingly become a mechanism to evade

longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices

manifest in several ways:

 Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees

engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and

integral to the functioning of an institution are often

labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when

their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such

misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,

security, and benefits that regular employees are

entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

 Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are

frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as

seen in the present case. This practice undermines

the principles of natural justice and subjects

workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless

of the quality or duration of their service.

 Lack of Career Progression: Temporary

employees often find themselves excluded from

opportunities for skill development, promotions, or

incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in

their roles, creating a systemic disparity between

them and their regular counterparts, despite their

contributions being equally significant.

 Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions

increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed

by temporary employees, effectively replacing one

set of exploited workers with another. This practice

not only perpetuates exploitation but also

demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the

obligation to offer regular employment.

 Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary

employees are often denied fundamental benefits

such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,

and paid leave, even when their tenure spans

Page 19

decades. This lack of social security subjects them

and their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to

curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure

appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is

regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or

misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving

employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between

"illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically

held that employees in irregular appointments, who

were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served

continuously for more than ten years, should be

considered for regularization as a one-time measure.

However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being

subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to

indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in

cases where their appointments are not illegal, but

merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.

Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma

Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to

regularization exists for temporary employees,

overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of

cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective

application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose,

effectively weaponizing it against employees who have

rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is

imperative for government departments to lead by

example in providing fair and stable employment.

Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended

periods, especially when their roles are integral to the

organization's functioning, not only contravenes

international labour standards but also exposes the

organization to legal challenges and undermines

employee morale.

By ensuring fair employment practices, government

institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary

litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles

of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.

This approach aligns with international standards and

sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,

Page 20

thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour

practices in the country.”

34. The Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo v. Union of

India (2024 INSC 1034) sets a significant precedent for the

regularization of long-serving temporary employees in

government institutions. The judgment clarifies that:-

 Lengthy and uninterrupted service in essential

functions can warrant regularization, even if

initial appointments were irregular.

 The misuse of temporary or part-time labels to

deny employees their rightful claims is

unacceptable and contrary to principles of

fairness and equity.

 The decision discourages the exploitation of

workers through temporary contracts and

arbitrary terminations, encouraging government

institutions to adhere to fair employment

practices.

 The judgment is likely to influence future cases

involving similar disputes, guiding courts to look

beyond the initial terms of engagement and

consider the actual nature and duration of

service.

 It reinforces the responsibility of government

departments to lead by example in providing

stable and fair employment, thereby setting a

higher standard for the private sector as well.

35. Thus in the guidelines of the Supreme Court, to consider a

prayer for regularization of a casual worker the criterias are:-

i. Length of service,

ii. Whether working in the vacancy of a permanent post.

Page 21

iii. Whether the worker carried out the duties of a regular

employee for a substantial period of his service.

iv. Etc.

36. In the present case, the 16 referred workers have put in about

40 years of service, working under the same principle employer

being the petitioner here, doing work perennial in nature.

37. Thus, the award dated 26

th

May, 2010, in Reference No. 38

of 1998, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol , being in

accordance with law, requires no interference.

38. WPA 20646 of 2010 is dismissed.

39. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

41. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all

necessary legal formalities.

[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]