The Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), has ruled that long-term casual workers engaged in essential duties are entitled to regularization, and a reduction in workload is not a valid reason to deny their claims.
The case involved Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and seven workers employed at the Aviation Fuel Station (AFS) at Dum Dum Airport. These workers had been engaged in fuel supply operations, but after a policy change in October 2018, IOCL began transporting aviation fuel through pipelines from the Mourigram Terminal to Dum Dum Airport, altering the workers’ responsibilities.
Background of the Case
Previously, fuel was transported by tank trucks, requiring manual decantation, quality control checks, and valve operations. After the introduction of pipelines, IOCL argued that the reduced workload eliminated the need for permanent workers, allowing outsourcing of duties. The workers, however, contended that despite the changes, they continued to perform essential tasks and deserved regularization.
Following a failed conciliation process, the industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, which ruled in favor of the workers, rejecting IOCL’s argument that the new system justified denying regularization. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the workers’ employment was central to the case, not the introduction of the pipeline system.
Legal Precedents and Court Ruling
Challenging the Tribunal’s decision, IOCL filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court. The company maintained that the pipeline system had significantly reduced the workload and that permanent employment was unnecessary. The court, however, cited key judgments, including:
- Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., where the Supreme Court ruled that long-serving temporary employees in essential roles should be regularized. It stated that temporary contracts should not be misused to deny workers their rightful claims.
- Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., where the Supreme Court held that employees with more than ten years of continuous service in sanctioned posts should be considered for regularization.
The High Court reaffirmed that the reduction in workload was not a valid reason to reject regularization claims. It emphasized that prolonged temporary employment violates labor standards and undermines employee rights.
Final Verdict
The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the order dated 17th September 2024 was legally sound and required no interference. As a result, the writ petition filed by IOCL was dismissed, ensuring that the workers’ claims for regularization remain valid.
This judgment marks a significant step in protecting the rights of long-term casual workers, reinforcing that essential duties, even amid operational changes, warrant fair employment practices.
