Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 13673 OF 2025

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ….. Petitioner

: Versus :

Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-II and another. …. Respondents

Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mallika Joshi & Mr. Akshay

Gupte i/b Solomon & Co., for the Petitioner.

Mr. Lilesh P. Sawant, for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On : 27 AUGUST 2026.

Pronounced On: 09 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Judgment :

1) Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for �nal

disposal.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    1   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

2) Petitioner-ONGC is aggrieved by the Award dated 24 April

2025 passed by the learned Presiding Of�cer, CGIT-II, Mumbai in

Reference No. CGIT 1/19 of 2008. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal

has answered the Reference in the af�rmative and has held that the nine

employees in the Reference are entitled for permanency. ONGC was

accordingly directed to make the nine employees permanent from the

date of completion of 240 days of service and by granting them the

�nancial bene�ts of permanency within 2 months.

3) Petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking and a Government

Company engaged in the activities of exploration and mining of

hydrocarbons throughout the country including Western Offshore at

Mumbai High and Eastern Offshore, Kakinada. Petitioner has rigs,

platforms and processing complex i.e. offshore installations in the

Western Offshore Unit, Mumbai which is located at Mumbai High at 12

nautical miles beyond the baseline in the high seas. At such installations,

Petitioner carried out the activities of exploration, drilling and production

of oil and natural gas. According to the Petitioner, the exploration

activities of hydrocarbon involve years of operations and that the success

of exploration of locations for crude oil and natural gas is uncertain and

that the ratio of success is also very low. As a result, employment of very

huge manpower in anticipation of success of oil exploration is not viable

for Petitioner’s business.

4) Around 2000-01, ONGC was expanding its exploration and

production operations at Mumbai High Offshore �eld and was desirous of

engaging technical personnel for a limited purpose of inter-alia drilling

and production activities. Since there was no certainty about the outcome

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    2   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

of exploration/production at the offshore �eld, Petitioner thought it

prudent to employ lesser manpower and to employ the same for short

period of time. The Petitioner otherwise follows a system of engaging

manpower on a tenure-based or term-based employment and/or �eld

operators, to meet such requirements, which remain uncertain until

production from such exploration materializes.

5) In the year 2000-01, Petitioner sent requisitions to the

employment exchange for engagement of manpower for �xed tenure of 2-

3 years for meeting its activities of exploration and production of crude

oil and natural gas. From the names suggested by the employment

exchange, Petitioner selected the sponsored candidates to work as

Assistant Rigman/Field Operator (Drilling). The workmen were selected

after meeting the minimum quali�cations for the post viz. Matriculation

with Science and trade certi�cate in Mechanics (diesel/ instruments/

turner/ tractor/ motor-vehicle/ �tting/ welding/ blacksmith/ boiler

attendant) from recognized institute. The Petitioner subjected the

candidates to a written test and interview, followed by medical

examination, and only thereafter engaged them. According to the

Petitioner, it was speci�cally made clear in the appointment letters that

the engagements were limited to the �xed term period indicated therein

and it is the case of the Petitioner that the terms of appointment were

accepted by the concerned workmen.

6) Later the Petitioner decided to standardize/rationalize the

terms and conditions of appointments on �xed tenure basis and approved

fresh terms and conditions of appointment and compensation package

under the tenure based system of employment. Since requirement was for

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    3   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

young, �t and technically quali�ed workforce to man the �eld operations,

the engagements was for �xed period of 4 years. At the end of the tenure,

the concerned workmen were offered fresh tenure engagements by re-

engaging them.

7) In the year 2008, 79 workmen raised a dispute demand ing

regularization. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India made a

Reference vide letter dated 3 November 2008 to CGIT-II, Mumbai for

adjudication on following dispute:

Whether the action of the management of ONGC, Mumbai, employing

the 79 Field operators in the offshore on �xed term employment is legal

and justi�ed? What relief these workmen are entitled to? And whether

they are entitled for regularization as demand by the Union, viz. ONGC

(BOP) Karmachari Sanghatana?

8) According to the Petitioner, during pendency of the

Reference, several noti�cations/ advertisements were issued for �lling up

regular posts and several of the employees covered under the Reference

applied in pursuance of the same. Out of the 79 workmen who had

initially raised the dispute and who were prosecuting the Reference, 55

workmen were found eligible under the recruitment notices and were

appointed on regular basis.

9) In the pending Reference, the workmen �led their Statement

of Claim on 10 April 2012, which was resisted by the Petitioner by �ling

Written Statement on 6 August 2014. As observed above, out of 79

workmen, 55 workmen were regularly appointed during pendency of the

Reference and 15 workmen dropped out of the Reference due to

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    4   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

retirement, death or resignation. The Reference was thus prosecuted only

by 9 workmen.

10) The CGIT has made Award dated 24 April 2025 answering the

Reference in the af�rmative and holding that the 9 employees are entitled

for permanency. ONGC is accordingly directed to make those 9 employees

permanent w.e.f the date of completion of 240 days of service. Aggrieved

by the impugned Award dated 24 April 2025, the Petitioners have �led the

present petition.

11) Mr. Cama, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner submits that the impugned Award made by the learned

Tribunal is ex-facie illegal and liable to be set aside. That the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) do not apply to the concerned

workmen, who are appointed to work on the oil rigs of the Petitioner

located beyond 12 nautical miles of the coastline where the laws made by

India do not apply. He relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Aban Loyd

Chilies Offshore Limited and another Versus. Union of India

1

. That the

Tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reference.

Since the Award is without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside.

12) Mr. Cama further submits that the Industrial Court has

overstepped the terms of reference. That the Reference was made for

demand of ‘regularization’ whereas what is granted by the Tribunal is

‘permanency’. That regularization and permanency are two distinct and

independent concepts. He relies on judgment of the Apex Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus. Umadevi (3) and

1 2008 11 SCC 439

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    5   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

others

2

in support of his contention of regularization and permanency

being distinct concepts. That in the present case, appointments of 9

workers were not irregular, which were capable of being regularized. The

appointments were tenure speci�c and that therefore there was no

question of regularization of such appointments. Even otherwise, long

service by itself is not suf�cient to claim regularization where the initial

appointment was not made in accordance with the constitu tional

requirements embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The impugned Award, in effect, results in the conferment of permanency

upon persons who had entered service through the back door. That the

concerned workers did not hold requisite quali�cations and were

temporarily engaged. That even one time exception in the judgment of

Umadevi (3) (supra) is not attracted in the present case.

13) Mr. Cama further submits that the concerned workers

participated in various selection processes for the purpose of regular

appointments but failed in the same. That therefore they are estopped

from turning around and claiming the relief of permanency. That out of

79 workers, 55 have been absorbed after participating in the regular

selection process. That the only way for securing regular appointments

was to clear regular selection process. He relies on judgment of the Apex

Court in State of Punjab and others Versus. Jagit Singh and others

3

in

support of his contention that sanctioned posts are to be �lled only by

regular recruitment process and not by granting permanency to back door

entrants.

2 2006 4 SCC 1

3 2017 1 SCC 148

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    6   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

14) Mr. Cama further submits that no evidence was led on behalf

of Respondent No. 2 and in absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has

erroneously raised the presumption of existence of sanctioned vacancies.

That neither were there any sanctioned vacancies available nor were the

workers duly quali�ed, nor were they selected pursuant to any open

advertisement and that therefore, the relief of permanency could not

have been granted to them. That even otherwise, permanency on

completion of 240 days of service cannot be granted to those who accept

tenure-based appointments. That Tribunal has virtually created posts on

the establishment of ONGC by directing permanency on completion of

240 days of service. He submits that at the highest, regularization can be

prospective as the same disturbs the seniority. In support, he relies on

Registrar General of India and another Versus. Thippa Shetty and

others

4

. He prays for setting aside the impugned Award of the Tribunal.

15) Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.2 opposes the petition. He submits that the point of jurisdiction and

non-applicability of provisions of ID Act raised by the Petitioner is totally

baseless. That the workers are only posted on the Rigs but all their service

related decisions are taken at of�ce of ONGC at Mumbai. That

appointments are also effected at Mumbai. That if any accident or crime

occurs at the Rig, the same is reported at Yellow Gate Police Station,

Mumbai. That even disciplinary action of workers working at the Rigs is

taken at Mumbai. That therefore the provisions of the ID Act are fully

applicable to the nine workers.

4 1998 8 SCC 690

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    7   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

16) Mr. Sawant further submits that the concerned workers are

not back door entrants as their names were sponsored by the employment

exchange. That they participated in regular selections at the time of

initial engagements. That they were always treated as regular for all

practical purposes such as deduction of Provident Fund, issuance of I-

Card etc. That Petitioners have worked continuously for 25 long years

without any break in service. That their engagements were not project

speci�c. That Petitioners are so experienced on the positions as Assistant

Rigman that some of them are utilized on the position of Topman. On

many occasion, they train other employees posted at the Rigs. He submits

that mere participation in other selection process, does not destroy or

affect the right of regularization of the workers. He relies on similar

orders passed by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad, Madras, etc. in support of

the contention that similarly placed workmen are already regularized.

That the process of sanctioning the posts is nothing but internal

management of the Petitioner which the workers are not aware of. That

having completed over 25 years of service, the least that is required to be

granted to the workers is regularization of their services. Mr. Sawant

accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.

17) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

18) Petitioner-ONGC is aggrieved by the impugned Award made

by the CGIT which contemplates grant of permanency to the nine workers

with effect from the date of completion of 240 days of service by them

with all consequential �nancial bene�ts. Since the concerned nine

workers joined services of ONGC from various dates beginning from the

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    8   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

year 2001, they will have to be made permanent almost after a year of

their joining and paid the difference in wages paid to the regular

employees.

19) The law on the subject of regularization of services of

temporary/casual/ad-hoc employees in the services of the Governments

and State Instrumentalities is now well settled by the Constitution Bench

judgment in Umadevi (3). The Hon’ble Apex Court has authoritatively

held that appointments made dehors the constitutional sc heme

governing public employment cannot be regularized. The Apex Court held

that mere continuous service for long period is not a factor suf�cient for

granting the bene�t of regularization. The judgment in Umadevi (3)

mandates that all regular sanctioned posts in the services of the State and

its instrumentalities must be �lled up by following regular selection

process and it is impermissible to make ad-hoc, casual or temporary

appointments dehors the selection process. The Apex Court has further

ruled that Governments cannot make irregular appointments and Courts

cannot seek to regularize such appointments by issuing directions. The

Apex Court has held that adherence to the principle of equality in matters

of public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution. Since the very

core of public employment is governed by this constitutional mandate,

the Courts cannot pass orders that are inconsistent with t he

constitutional scheme governing public employment. The High Courts,

execrcising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

cannot ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization and

permanency, unless such directions are consistent with and in conformity

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    9   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

with the constitutional scheme. The Apex Court has held in paragraphs 43

to 47 as under :

43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of

law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled

from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering

the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article

14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with

the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the

law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of

the relevant rules and after a proper competition among quali�ed

persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a

contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end

of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages

or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.

Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent

on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clari�ed that

merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not

be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely

on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the

relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment

at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment

has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of

their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue

directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance

unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the

constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued

under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious

employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be

entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In

fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justi�ed in issuing interim

directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is

found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in

such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him,

whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up

the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of

paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be

careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic

arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend

themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the

constitutional and statutory mandates.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    10   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

44. The concept of 'equal pay for equal work' is different from the

concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on

ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as

envisaged by the Rules. This Court has in various decisions applied the

principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters

for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the

concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the

directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle

cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments

made without following the due procedure established by law, be

deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent.

Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity.

The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in

any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be

used for giving the go-by to the procedure established by law in the

matter of public employment. Take the situation arising in the cases

before us from the State of Karnataka. Therein, after the Dharwad

decision, the Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory

orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be

given. Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those

directions or de�ed those directions and had continued to give

employment, speci�cally interdicted by the orders issued by the

executive. Some of the appointing of�cers have even been punished for

their de�ance. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise

of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise

of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India permitting those

persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on

their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice

according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the

relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to

perpetuating an illegality.

45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be

regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the

concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a

considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an

engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the

nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open.

It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms

length -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as

to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that

ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional

scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has

temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued

permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public

appointment which is not permissible. Ie court were to void a

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    11   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties

were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the

court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such

casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of

administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who

at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would

not be getting even that employment when securing of su ch

employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable

citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not

compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not

inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one

has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully

knowing the nature of it and the consequences �owing from it. In other

words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned

knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post

in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in

which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be

considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the

procedure established, for making regular appointments to available

posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been

working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him,

even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he �rst

took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure

established by law for public employment and would have to fail when

tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity

enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution .

46. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the respondents argued that on

the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the employees,

especially of the Commercial Taxes Department, should be directed to

be regularized since the decisions in  Dharwad (supra), Piara

Singh (supra), Jacob, and Gujarat Agricultural University and the like,

have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also

be regularized. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the

Administrative Authority affect the person by depriving him of some

bene�t or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted

by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to

be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to

him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been

given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from

the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him

�rst an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they

should not be withdrawn (See:Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service

Unions.v.Minister for the Civil Service ,National Buildings Construction

Corporation .v. S. Raghunathan and Dr. Chanchal Goyal .v. State of

Rajasthan). There is no case that any assurance was given by the

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    12   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

Government or the department concerned while making th e

appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be

withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for

withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional

scheme. Though, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes

Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is

no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No

such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and

directives issued by the Government after Dharwad decision. Though,

there is a case that the State had made regularizations in the past of

similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularizations

were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the

Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some case by this

Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of l egitimate

expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be

made permanent or they must be regularized in the service though they

had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact

that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the

employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a

claim based on legitimate expectation. The argument if accepted would

also run counter to the constitutional mandate. The argument in that

behalf has therefore to be rejected.

47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement

as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a

proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is

aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual

or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of

legitimate expectation for being con�rmed in the post when an

appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper

procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the

Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate

expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual

or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out

any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them

where they are or to make them permanent. The State ca nnot

constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory

cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in

the post.

20) However, in para-53 of the judgment in Umadevi (3), the

Apex Court has recognized an exception by directing regularization of

services of those irregular employees who were quali�ed and those whose

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    13   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

appointments were made against duly sanctioned vacant posts and who

continue to work for over 10 years. The Apex Court has held in paragraph

53 of the judgment as under:

53. One aspect needs to be clari�ed. There may be cases where irregular

appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained i n S.V.

Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan

(supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly quali�ed persons

in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the

employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the

intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of

regularization of the services of such employees may have to be

considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court

in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that

context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their

instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure,

the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years

or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts

or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are

undertaken to �ll those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be �lled

up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now

employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from

this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but

not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there

should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and

regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the

constitutional scheme.

21) In the present case, Petitioner needed the work force for the

purpose of carrying out its exploration activities and accordingly sent

requisitions to the Employment Exchange. All the 9 workers were

sponsored by Employment Exchange and were apparently subjected to

the written tests before being selected for tenure-based appointments.

The manner of making initial appointments is described by the Petitioner

itself in para-4.3 of the petition which reads thus:

4.3 Initially, Petitioner sought for applications through the employment

exchange (within the meaning of Employment Exchange (Compulsory

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    14   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

Noti�cation of Vacancies) Act, 1959) for a �xed tenure of two to three

years on the terms and conditions to be stipulated in the letter

containing the offer of Tenure Based engagement to meet the immediate

manpower requirement for the Petitioner's activities of exploration and

production of crude oil and natural gas. It bears mention that oil

exploration is an extremely uncertain process. There is no guarantee

that the oil will be found at the current location where the exploration is

on-going. Hence the Petitioner had, of necessity, to engage �xed term

employees for the period of proposed exploration at any site. Hence the

Petitioner offered �xed term appointments to workers who were

available with the employment exchange. The Petitioner selected some

workmen for the post of Assistant Rigman / Field Operator (drilling).

Each workman was selected (i) after meeting the minimum quali�cations

for the post, inter alia, having a matric with science and trade certi�cate

in mechanic (diesel / instrument / turner / tractor /motor vehicle / �tting

/ welding / blacksmithy / boiler attendant) from a recognized institute

(ii) after clearing a written test and interview, and (iii) after a medical

certi�cate of �tness to work on the offshore rigs as issued by Medical

Of�cer of Petitioner. No open advertisement was however made since

this was not meant to be a case of regular recruitment.

22) Thus, from the pleadings in the Petition itself, it is clear that

the concerned 9 workers are not backdoor entrants in that sense. A

backdoor entrant is usually a person who is engaged without following

any process and without verifying the eligibility criteria. Backdoor entry is

like local level of�cials hiring services of known persons without

following the selection process. In the present case, Petitioners

themselves have admitted that the eligibility criteria was prescribed and

only those meeting the criteria were allowed to participate in the written

test. The appointments of 9 workers were made during the year 2000-01

and there is no dispute to the position that they have continued to work

without any breaks, in real and practical sense. Mere issuance of fresh

tenure appointments does not constitute break in service.

23) After working for about 7/8 years, a Reference was made at

the instance of the Union of the workers for adjudication of the demand

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    15   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

for regularization vide Reference order dated 3 November 2008. Petitioner

did not question the validity of Reference order dated 3 November 2008

on the ground of non-applicability of provisions of the ID Act to the

concerned workmen. Without challenging the reference order, the

Petitioner however raised a defense of absence of jurisdiction before the

Tribunal on the ground that provisions of ID Act do not apply to the

workers who were posted to work beyond 12 nautical miles from the line

of India’s main land. Petitioner also raised a defense of absence of

jurisdiction of CGIT over workers working at the Rig located beyond 12

nautical miles. The Tribunal considered the evidence and has answered

the issue of jurisdiction against the Petitioner.

24) I �nd the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner about

absence of jurisdiction to be totally baseless. Through the concerned

workers may be posted to work at the Rigs located beyond 12 nautical

miles of India’s coastline, however, their appointment orders were issued

at Mumbai and were addressed to the workers at Mumbai. Petitioners

have placed on record some of the orders of re-engagement at Exh-G to

the petition. By order dated 11 February 2013, Mr. Kailas Shankar

Dandekar was granted tenure engagement as Field Operat or. The

appointment order was signed by the Deputy General Manager (HR) in

Human Resources and Employees Relations Services Department at Of�ce

of ONGC at Bandra. The address of the employee was shown at Dandekar

House, Goma Gally, Andheri (West), Mumbai. Thus, the appointment

order is issued to the worker by the Petitioner at Mumbai and the same

was addressed to him at Mumbai. There is no dispute to the position that

all the decisions relating to service conditions of the workers were taken

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    16   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

at Mumbai. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the disciplinary actions

against employees performing duties on the oil rigs were initiated and

conducted at the Indian territory in accordance with Indian Law. Mr.

Sawant points out that even untoward incidents and crimes occurring at

the rigs are always reported at Yellow Gate Police Station at Mumbai. I

therefore �nd the objection of non-applicability of provisions of the ID

Act and absence of jurisdiction of the Tribunal over service conditions of

9 workers raised by the Petitioner-ONGC to be preposterous, baseless and

outrageous. The case does not involve engagement of a foreign national

to work at the oil rig. Here, the appointments are made in Mumbai, India

and all decisions relating to service conditions of the workers are taken at

Mumbai, India. It is therefore absurd to suggest that Indian laws do not

apply to the service conditions of the concerned workers or that CGIT

does not have jurisdiction to decide the Reference concerning them.

25) Reliance by Mr. Cama on judgment of the Apex Court in

Aban Loyd Chilies Offshore Limited (supra) is inapposite. The issue

before the Apex Court was about applicability of custom duties on spare

parts required for oil rigs located outside territorial waters, but within the

exclusive economic zone of India. The Apex Court in fact ruled in favour

of Government of India by holding that customs duty was applicable and

leviable by virtue of extension of Indian territory to the designated areas

in exclusive economic zone. The judgment has absolutely no application

to the issue of applicability of ID Act to the workers who are merely

deployed to work at oil rigs, but whose appointments are essentially made

at Mumbai. The objection of absence of jurisdiction is accordingly

repelled.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    17   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

26) Returning to the main issue of permissibility to make the 9

workers permanent in service of ONGC, it is seen that their initial

appointments could be treated, at the highest, as irregular and not

completely dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment under

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They are not backdoor

entrants. As observed above, they have participated in the selection

process after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. May be the

ONGC treated their engagements for �xed term on account of the

uniqueness of its requirement where the oil exploration activities are

uncertain making it impossible to predict as to whether the concerned

employee is permanently required at the oil �eld or not. However, the fact

of the matter is that the nine workers have been in continuous service for

over a quarter of a century, and it is dif�cult to believe that their

engagement was solely for the limited purpose of any speci�c project or

that ONGC does not require their services. On the other hand, the

evidence on record suggests that the concerned workers have proved to be

an asset for ONGC who have worked for over a quarter of century in

adverse conditions at the oil rigs.

27) Mr. Cama has highlighted the act on the part of the workers

in participating in the selection process for applicability of bar of

estoppel. In my view, mere participation in the selection process by the 9

workers would not disentitle them from claiming permanency or

regularization. The references remained pending for 17 long years and

the workers may have taken chances by participating in the regular

selection process. In many selection processes, they were apparently

adjudged ineligible. Similarly, the mere fact that 55 other workers got

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    18   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

themselves permanently appointed after participating in regular selection

process would not again deprive the 9 workers from claiming the bene�t

of regularization.

28) The Tribunal has considered the service tenures of each of

the 9 workers as under:

On careful perusal of the various copies of appointment orders it reveals

that, the Ankush Gopal Katara was initially appointed on the post of

Asst. Rigman (D) by order dated 20 December 2000 on the

recommendation of the selection committee and medical certi�cate

issued by DGM (MS) for the period of three years, his appointment was

for �xed period. Subsequently he was appointed by order dated

29.01.2005 for a �xed period of four years till 31.01.2009, order dated

08.02.2013 for a �xed period of four years, order dated 14.02.2017 for a

�xed period of four years, reengaged by order dated 22.02.2021 for

further period of four years.

Liladhar M. Koli was sponsored by employment exchange and

was by letter dated 14.11.2000 called for written test for the post of Asst.

Rigman which was held on 19.11.2000 and subsequently by order dated

29.12.2000 was engaged on the recommendation of the sele ction

committee and medical �tness certi�cate for �xed period of three years.

Thereafter by letter dated 18.11.2013, he was called for interview, which

was held on 05.12.2003 and of�ce order dated 19.02.2003 his

appointment was extended for a period of three years ends on

28.12.2003, subsequently by another order dated 19.12.2003, the

appointment was extended till 27.02.2004, by of�ce order dated

24.02.2004, it was approved upto 31.03.2004, of�ce order dated

26.03.2004 appointment was extended upto 30.09.2004 by of�ce order

dated 15.09.2004 further extended upto 31.12.2004, by order dated

30.11.2004, fresh appointment for �xed period of four years. Thereafter

by order dated 29.01.2005 appointed as a Field Operator (Drilling) for

the period till 31.01.2009, by order dated 06.02.2009 appointed for a

�xed period of four years till 02.02.2013, by order dated 08.02.2013

appointed for a �xed period of four years, by order dated 04.02.2017

appointed as a �eld operator for a period of four years.

Kailash S. Dandekar was sponsored by employment exchange as

written test dated 28.10.2001, by order dated 24.10.2001 appointed for a

�xed period of three years, by order dated 29.01.2005 engaged as Field

Operator Drilling for �xed period of four years, by order dated

03.02.2009 appointed for a period of four years by order dated

11.02.2013 again appointed for four years, by another order dated

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    19   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

25.03.2017 appointed for a period of four years, by letter dated

15.02.2021, he was advised to appear before Medical Board for further

extension of tenure engagement for the period of four years.

Sandeep D. Chari was initially appointed on the basis of

recommendation of selection committee and medical �tness certi�cate

by order dated 20.12.2000 for �xed period of three years, by order dated

29.01.2005, he was engaged as Field Operator Drilling for further period

of four years till 31.01.2009, by order dated 08.02.2013 engaged for

another four years.

Sunil Tukaram Sakpal on the recommendation from

employment exchange for the post of Asst. Rigman (D) by letter dated

14.11.2000, he was called for written test on 19.11.2000 and by order

dated 20.12.2000 appointed for the post of Asst. Rigman (D) for �xed

period of three years accordingly he joined on 22.12.2000 and directed to

report to Rig Incharge, Sagar Shakti, by order dated 05.03.2001, he was

conveyed about House Rent Allowance, appointment was extended upto

27.02.2004, by letter dated 24.02.2004 appointment was extended w.e.f.

01.04.2004 and by letter dated 26.03.2004 till 30.09.2004, again extended

till 31.12.2004 by letter dated 15.09.2004 by another order dated

29.01.2005, he was engaged as Field Operator Drilling for the period of

four years by order dated 03.02.2009 appointed for further period of four

years, by letter dated 15.02.2013 he was asked to appear for before OGM

Incharge medical service ONGC Mumbai and by order dated 15.02.2017

appointed as a �eld operator for a period of four years.

Milind Parkar joined as Asst. Rigman (Drilling) by order dated

22.12.2000 and by letter dated 15.03.2001, he was granted House Rent

Allowance. After completion of period by letter dated 18.11.2003 he was

called for interview which was scheduled on 05.12.2003 by order dated

26.03.2004 he was appointed as Asst. Rigman (Drilling) for a period of

three years then by order dated 29.01.2005 appointed as Field Operator

Drilling for a �xed period of four years, by order dated 06.02.2009

appointed for a period of four years till 02.02.2013 by order dated

11.11.2016 engaged for a period of four years w.e.f. 21.11.2016 and on

24.12.2020, he submitted joining report for continuation of �ve term

employment.

Siddharth D. Bhika on recommendation of selection committee,

he was appointed by order dated 15.11.2000 for a period of three years,

by order dated 22.10.2004 his period of appointment was extended upto

31.12.2004. Thereafter by order dated 30.11.2004 he was appointed for a

�xed period of four years, then by another order dated 29.01.2005 he was

engaged as a Field Operator - Drilling for a period of four years. It

reveals that, he reported for duty on 09.02.2009 and his appointment

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    20   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

was expiring on 08.02.2013. Thereafter by order dated 08.02.2013 he was

appointed for a period of four years and it also reveals from letter dated

15.02.2021, the medical section was asked about advised the employee

for medical examination.

Prashant Pawaskar was engaged as Field Operator by order

dated 08.02.2013 for a period of four years and by another order dated

20.02.2017 engaged for another period of four years accordingly he

joined the services w.e.f. 08.03.2017 and post at Rig Sagar Kiran.

Abraham Ahmad Mohammed was offered letter of

appointment based on the recommendation of selection committee for

the post of Asst. Rigman (Drilling) dated 15.11.2001, he was appointed

for a period of three years. Thereafter by order dated 08.02.2013 engaged

as Field Operator for a period of four years and by order dated

13.02.2017 appointed for a period of four years.

29) Considering the above position, it appears that the concerned

nine workers cannot be treated as backdoor entrants and that they are in

service for a substantial period of time.

30) Mr. Cama has attempted to highlight the inconsistencies in

use of the word ‘regularisation’ in the Reference as against use of the word

‘permanency’ in the Award. He has relied on judgment of the Apex Court

in Umadevi (3) in support of his contention that regularization and

permanency are two different concepts. After referring to the judgment in

R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr

5

and B.N. Nagarajan Versus.

State of Karnataka

6

, the Apex Court held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as

under:

15. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction

between regularization and conferment of permanence in service

jurisprudence. In State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa

MANU/SC/0232/1966 : [1967]1SCR128 , this Court stated that it was a

mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In

5 1972 2 SCR 799

6 1979 4 SCC 507

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    21   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and Anr. MANU/SC/0680/1971 :

(1972)ILLJ565SC , this Court dealt with an argument that regularization

would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment.

This Court stated:-

Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that

regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence

on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State

contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that

it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both

the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in

infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of

the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Rati�cation or

regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and

province of the authority, but there has been some non-

compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the

root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a

mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be

to introduce a new head of appointment in de�ance of rules or it

may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.

16. In B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

MANU/SC/0450/1979 : (1979)IILLJ209SC , this Court clearly held that the

words "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence and

cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of

appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural

irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable

to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court

emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in

exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of

the Constitution in contravention of the rules. These decisions and the

principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court

and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as

enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this

distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is

irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process

of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be

regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting

permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be

equated with regularization.

31) No doubt, the concept of regularization and permanency are

distinct and different. Regularization envisages conversion of irregular

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    22   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

appointments into regular ones. In paragraph 53 of the judgment in

Umadevi (3), the Apex Court has explained the scope of regularization

and held that only duly quali�ed employees engaged against duly

sanctioned and vacant posts may be considered for regularization, even

though the regular selection process was not followed at the time of their

initial engagements. In the present case also, the workers were duly

quali�ed and also participated in the selection process by appearing in

written tests. Whether posts were sanctioned at the oil rigs is itself a

matter of debate, particularly in view of the peculiar nature of the

activities undertaken by ONGC. However, the fact that services of the

workers are continued for over 25 years can give rise to an assumption

about need for their services. Therefore, the bene�t of regularization

cannot be denied to them.

32) The term ‘ permanency’ is used by the Industrial Tribunal in

the Award since it has directed making the workers permanent on

completion of 240 days of service. In my view the Tribunal has faltered to

this limited extent as the direction for making workers permanent on

completion of 240 days of service is akin to creation of posts on the

establishment of ONGC, which power the industrial adjudicator does not

possess. By now, it is well settled principle that an industrial adjudicator

cannot direct creation of posts on establishments of the State and its

Instrumentalities. In Municipal Council Tirora Versus. Tulsidas Baliram

Bindhade

7

the Division Bench of this Court has held that Model Standing

Order 4(c) cannot be the basis for directing creation of posts on the

establishments of State Instrumentalities. The Division Bench held thus:

7 2016 (6) MH.L. 867

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    23   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

19. In this reference, the position emerging before us is similar. There is

no con�ict between the provisions of M.S.O. 4-C and the provisions of

the S. 76 of the 1965 Act. In the event of the appointment having been

made validly, it may be possible to invoke the provisions Cl. 4-C of

M.S.O. A view to the contrary would result in regularizing/validating a

void act. Cl. 4-C neither permits nor contemplates the same. As held in

the above judgments, if the appointment is not made in accordance with

the constitutional scheme, it is void ab-initio and, therefore, there can

be no claim to its regularization or for grant of permanency in any

manner. This is all the more so as Cl. 32 of the M.S.O. clari�es that the

Standing Orders are not to operate in derogation of any other law i.e. S.

76 of 1965 Act. De�nitely any interpretation of Clause 4C conducive to

defeating the Constitutional mandate is unwarranted. Violation of

Clause 4C of the MSO may tantamount to an unfair labour practice

under item 9 of Sch. IV of the 1971 Act but unless & until, other

additional factors are proved on record, �nding of indulgence in an

unfair labour practice under item 6 of Sch. IV thereof can not be

reached. As explained by the Hon. Apex Court in case of Maharashtra

SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (supra),

existence of a legal vacancy must be established & as discussed above,

the power to recruit with the employer must also be demonstrated. In

absence thereof, workman can not succeed in proving the commission of

unfair labour practice under item 6 by the employer. These two

ingredients, therefore, also must be established when bene�t of Cl. 4-C

is being claimed. Unless availability of a vacancy is shown or then power

with the employer to create the post and to �ll it is brought on record,

mere continuation of 240 days can not and does not enable the workman

to claim permanency by taking recourse to Cl. 4C read with item 9 of

Sch. IV of 1971 Act. Clause 4C does not employ word "regularisation" but

then it is implicit in it as no "permanency" is possible without it.

Conversely, it follows that when a statutory provision like S. 76 disables

the employer either from creating or �lling in the posts, such a claim can

not be sustained. This also nulli�es the reliance upon the judgment of

learned Single Judge in case of Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana v.

Ballarpur Industries Limited (supra) where the employer was a private

Company not subjected to such regulatory measures by any Statute and

enjoyed full freedom to create the posts and to recruit. One of us (B.P.

Dharmadhikari, J.) is party to the judgment of this Court in Raymond

UCO Denim Private Ltd. v. Praful Warade & Ors. (supra) which again

needs to be distinguished for the same reasons. The judgment of learned

Single Judge in case of Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. v. The Industrial

Court and Ors. (supra), judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court af�rming it or

then judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at Western India Match

Company Ltd. and Workmen are all considered therein & a re

distinguishable as the same do not pertain to the province of public

employment or consider inherent Constitutional restraints (the suprema

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    24   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

lex - see Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority and others

(supra) and Cl. 32 of the MSO. For same reasons, law laid down by the

Full Bench judgment of this Court in MANU/MH/0888/2006 : 2007 (1)

CLR 460 : 2007 (1) Mah. L.J. 754- Gangadhar Balgopal Nair v. Voltas

Limited & Anr. does not advance the cause of workmen. The Division

Bench of this Court in May & Baker Ltd. v. Kishore Jaikishandas

Icchaporia (supra) while construing Section 10-A(3) held that the

expression "other law" would not refer to the model standing orders or

the certi�ed standing orders since they are laws made under the

provisions of parent act itself and not under any other law. The Model

Standing Orders and Certi�ed Standing Orders, held the Division Bench,

"are laws no doubt but they are laws made under the provisions of the

Act". They were held not to be provisions under any other law. This

discussion therefore shows how these words "in derogation of any law

for the time being in force" in Cl. 32 of MSO need to be understood &

does not help Adv. Jaiswal or Adv. Khan.

20. In Vice-chancellor, Lucknow University v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare &

Anr. (supra) relied upon by Adv. Parihar, Hon. Apex Court follows its

Constitution Bench in Umadevi (III) and while rejecting relief of

regularization to the daily wagers who were engaged in p ublic

employment without proper procedure, grants them compensation of

Rs. 4 Lakh each by way of compassion. This judgment does not consider

any welfare labour legislation and, therefore, can not provide direct

answer to the reference made. Judgment of this Court taking similar

view in the light of 1971 Act in the case of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth,

Akola v. General Secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union & Anr.

(supra) is already considered above. The Division Bench of this Court in

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav (supra) �nds

that the respondents before it were employed as daily wagers in the

establishment of the government milk dairy for a longer period of 12 to

20 years. There were no sanctioned posts and vacancies in existence in

the concerned department. Respondents failed to demonstrate that their

appointments were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed

for selection. The Division Bench �nds it wholly unjust to direct the

appellant State Government to grant permanency to the respondents. It

points out that the provisions of Model Standing Orders are subject to

the Rules regulating selection and appointment so also subject to the

constitutional scheme of public employment. Respondents - Daily

wagers are declared to possess no legal right to claim permanency. Order

passed by the learned Single Judge to the contrary have been quashed.

State Government is held obliged to make appointments in adherence to

the constitutional scheme of Public employment. Respondents -Daily

Wagers appointed without following the prescribed procedure for

selection by passing public participation did not acquire any legal right

to claim permanency. It is apparent that no inconsistency exists and

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    25   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

cannot be worked out in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Pandurang

Sitaram Jadhav as also Pune Municipal Corporation v. Dhananjay

Prabhakar Gokhale (supra) on one hand and Ballarpur Industries Limited

v. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana (supra) on the other hand.

Status of employer, nature of employment and inherent Constitutional

limitation on public employer or absence of such fetters on any private

employer or absolute freedom available to it to create post/s and recruit,

are some of the distinguishing features which prohibit this exercise.

21. Thus, in the light of this discussion, it follows that in absence of

vacant sanctioned posts with the Municipal Council, a workman who has

put in continuous service of 240 days or more in span of 12 months, can

not invoke Clause 4C of the MSO to claim either permanency or

regularization. We accordingly answer the question referred. Registry to

place the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge as per roaster

assignment for further consideration.

33) Post the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi

(3), the issue arose as to whether an industrial adjudicator is bound by the

principles enunciated therein. In Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation and others Versus. Casteribe Rajya P Karma chari

Sanghatana

8

and Hari Nandan Prasad and others Versus. Employer I/R

to Management of FCI and others

9

, this issue has been considered. The

principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) are also

applicable to the industrial adjudication when it comes to the industrial

adjudicator dealing with the cases of governments and th eir

instrumentalities. It is held that regularization can be directed by an

industrial adjudicator only in accordance with a scheme formulated by the

employer or where other similarly placed workers have been regularized,

and when denying regularization to the concerned workers would amount

to a breach of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. In

my view, therefore it is impermissible to direct grant of bene�t of

8 2009 8 SCC 556

9 2014 7 SCC 190

_____________________________________________________________________________

                     PAGE NO.    26   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

permanency to the workers merely on completion of 240 days of service.

However, the cases of the concerned 9 workers need to be considered in

the light of exception recognized by the Apex Court in paragraph 53 of

the judgment in Umadevi (3) and the 9 workers can be granted the bene�t

of regularization on completion of 10 years of service by them. To this

limited extent only, the impugned award warrants modi�cation.

34) It is sought to be suggested by Mr. Cama that it is

impermissible to direct retrospective regularization as per the judgment

of the Apex Court in Registrar General of India (supra). The judgment

was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case, where the concerned

employees had been appointed on ad-hoc basis, and their regularization,

as sought, would have disturbed the seniority of regularly appointed

employees in the cadre. The judgment, therefore, cannot be read as

supporting an abstract proposition that, in no case, can Courts and

Tribunals grant regularization with effect from a date anterior to the date

of the judgment or award. In the present case, the Reference was made in

the year 2008. If regularization is granted on completion of 10 years of

service, the bene�t of regularization would enure to the workers on/or

after the year 2011 i.e. after making of the Reference. In that sense,

regularization would not be retrospective.

35) Considering the above position, in my view, the bene�t of

regularization cannot be denied to the 9 workers. However, direction for

making them permanent from the date of completion of 240 days of

service deserves to be set aside and instead it needs to be directed that

the workers shall be treated as in regular service of ONGC from the date

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    27   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

Neeta Sawant WP-13673 OF 2025

of completion of 10 years of service by them. I accordingly proceed to

pass the following order:

(I) Award dated 24 April 2025 passed by CGIT-II in Reference No.

CGIT 1/19 of 2008 is modi�ed by directing that the concerned

nine workers shall be treated in regular service of the Petitioner

w.e.f. the date of completion of 10 years of service from their

initial engagements.

(II) The consequential bene�ts be granted to them within 8 weeks.

36) With the above directions, the writ petition is partly

allowed. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to

costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

_____________________________________________________________________________

                      PAGE NO.    28   of   28                           

  09 September 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally signed by

NEETA SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date: 2026.09.09

18:47:26 +0530