Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. The case revolved around the claim of seven workmen seeking regularization of their employment with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) at the Aviation Fuel Station (AFS) of Dum Dum Airport.

The case originated from an industrial dispute concerning seven workmen engaged in duties at IOCL’s AFS Dum Dum. The petitioners, supported by their trade union, contended that they had been performing tasks of a perennial nature, thereby warranting their classification as regular employees rather than casual workers. They asserted that their roles involved essential operational work such as refuelling aircraft, maintaining fuel storage facilities, and handling quality control processes, duties integral to the continuous functioning of the AFS.

IOCL, on the other hand, argued that these workers were not directly engaged by the corporation and that their work was primarily handled through outsourcing. The company further stated that the introduction of a new pipeline transportation system in 2018 significantly reduced manual operations at AFS Dum Dum, thereby diminishing the necessity for these workers’ services. According to IOCL, the new system eliminated the requirement for manual decantation of fuel from tankers to storage tanks, as fuel was now transported directly via pipelines from the Mourigram Terminal.

Conciliation efforts by the authorities failed, leading to the reference of the dispute to the Tribunal in 2008. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the seven workmen were engaged as casual labourers by IOCL, whether their demand for regularization was legally justified, and what relief, if any, they were entitled to.

The petitioners relied on documents and testimonies to establish that they had worked continuously for several years at AFS Dum Dum, performing tasks identical to those of regular employees. They contended that their work was of a permanent and recurring nature, satisfying the criteria for regularization laid down in prior judicial precedents. They further submitted that IOCL’s claim of diminished workload due to the introduction of pipelines was an afterthought, given that their duties had remained unchanged over the years.

IOCL, in its defense, filed applications seeking to introduce additional evidence, including standard operating procedures and safety audit reports from 2018, demonstrating the operational changes brought about by the pipeline system. The company argued that the substantial reduction in manual work rendered the petitioners' demand for regularization redundant.

The Tribunal rejected IOCL’s applications for introducing fresh evidence, stating that the new system implemented in 2018 had no bearing on the employment status of the workers before that period. The Tribunal noted that the reference pertained to events preceding 2018 and that IOCL had ample opportunity to present its evidence earlier but failed to do so.

In its order dated September 17, 2024, the Tribunal addressed the core issues raised in the reference. The Tribunal observed that: “Having regards to the admitted date of death of three workmen, date of retirement of two others, and the fact that two workmen remain employed, the introduction of supply aviation fuel directly to storage at Dum Dum Airport through pipelines w.e.f. October 2018 appears immaterial for determination of the present case.”

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary issue was whether the seven workmen had been engaged as casual labourers before 2018 and whether they were entitled to regularization based on their nature of work. It held that IOCL’s arguments regarding operational changes post-2018 were extraneous to the adjudication of the dispute.

Additionally, the Tribunal referred to settled legal principles stating that admitted facts do not require proof. Since IOCL had not contested the fact that the petitioners had worked at AFS Dum Dum for an extended period, the Tribunal determined that further evidence was unnecessary.

Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s ruling, IOCL filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the rejection of its applications to introduce additional evidence. The company contended that the Tribunal's refusal to consider post-2018 operational changes had deprived it of a fair opportunity to present its case.

The High Court, however, upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the reference pertained to employment conditions prior to 2018 and that IOCL’s attempt to introduce additional evidence was not relevant to the main dispute. The Court noted that similar claims for regularization had been addressed in multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 1034), where the Apex Court had examined the broader issue of contractual employment in government institutions.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling: “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.”

The Court observed that regularization claims must be assessed based on factors such as continuity of employment, nature of duties performed, and whether the employees were engaged in roles essential to the organization’s operations. It further stated that mere operational changes did not invalidate the claim for regularization, particularly when employees had performed the same duties for a prolonged period.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was in accordance with legal principles and did not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all connected applications were disposed of.

Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.

Case Number: WPA 27693 of 2024

Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

[Read/Download order]