Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) (petitioner) challenging the order dated 17-09-2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, in a matter pertaining to a dispute over the employment status and regularization of seven workmen engaged at the Aviation Fuel Station (AFS) of Dum Dum Airport. Shampa Dutt (Paul), J., dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal’s decision was in accordance with law and required no interference.
IOCL, a public sector oil company, supplies aviation fuel to various aircraft companies at Dum Dum Airport. The fuel storage facility at AFS comprises large storage tanks that were historically operated manually by workmen engaged at the site. Initially, aviation fuel was transported from the Mourigram Terminal to AFS using tank trucks, requiring significant manual labor in unloading and managing fuel storage. However, in October 2018, IOCL implemented a new policy whereby fuel transportation was conducted through pipelines, reducing the workload at AFS.
A trade union espoused the cause of seven workmen contending that these individuals had been engaged as casual workers at AFS. The Union argued that since these workmen performed regular and perennial tasks at the facility, they were entitled to be regularized as permanent employees of IOCL. Following failed conciliation proceedings, the Central Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on 07-11-2008. The specific questions referred were:
-
Whether the seven workmen had ever been engaged by IOCL as casual laborers?
-
If so, whether their demand for regularization in IOCL was just and legal?
-
What relief, if any, were they entitled to, and from which date?
During the proceedings, IOCL sought to introduce additional evidence concerning the change in fuel transportation policy and its impact on workforce requirements. The company contended that the transition to pipeline-based transportation significantly reduced manual work at AFS, rendering the demand for regularization redundant. It filed two applications before the Tribunal, one for recalling the closure of its evidence and another seeking permission to adduce additional evidence regarding the change in work practices at AFS.
The Tribunal in its order dated 17-09-2024, rejected both applications and held that the introduction of pipeline-based fuel transportation in 2018 was immaterial to determining the employment status of the seven workmen, as the core issue was whether they had been engaged as casual workers by IOCL and whether they were entitled to regularization. The Tribunal observed that five of the seven workmen had either retired or passed away, while the remaining two were still engaged with IOCL. It held that IOCL’s evidence closure order, passed on 01-02-2024, remained valid, and refused to entertain further submissions from the company.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, which addressed the exploitation of temporary employees and emphasized that employees engaged in essential and recurring functions could not be denied regularization merely on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court had laid down criteria for regularization, including length of service, engagement in sanctioned posts, and continuity of work resembling that of permanent employees. The judgment criticized government institutions for misusing temporary employment mechanisms to evade legal obligations.
Applying these principles, the Court held that IOCL’s attempt to introduce evidence of reduced workload post-2018 was irrelevant, as the Tribunal was concerned with the historical nature of the work performed by the seven workmen. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly focused on the nature and continuity of employment rather than subsequent policy changes.
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Tribunal’s order was in accordance with legal principles and upheld that the reduction of workload due to operational changes did not negate the rights of casual workers seeking regularization. The Court emphasized that IOCL’s argument regarding post-2018 work conditions did not affect the fundamental issue of whether the seven workmen were entitled to permanent employment based on their past engagement.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed and upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of IOCL’s applications and affirmed that the demand for regularization must be assessed based on established labor law principles rather than subsequent operational modifications.
[Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Union of India, WPA 27693 of 2024, decided on 06-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv. Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Mr. Ranajit Talukder.
For the Respondent 1/ UOI: Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharya.
For the Respondent 2: Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Mr. Balaram Patra.