Supreme Court of India Mineral Exploration Corporation ... vs Mineral Exploration Corporation ... on 26 July, 2006 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 20272028 of 2000 PETITIONER: Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union RESPONDENT: Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2006 Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. The appellant before us is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union (AITUC) through its General Secretary, Respondent No.1 is the Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., though its Chairman and Managing Director, Seminari Hills, Nagpur and the second respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The appellantUnion preferred the above appeals against the common judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition Nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1998 filed by respondent No.1 (Corporation) and dismissed Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 filed by the Union and has set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.3.1998. The appellant is a registered Trade Union affiliated to AITUC. Respondent No.1 (Corporation) is a Public Sector Undertaking managed and controlled by the Ministry of Mines and is engaged in the exploration/discovery of mineral prospects/resources for rapid industrial growth in the country. Respondent No.1 is having various projects all over the country including their branches in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has employed approx. 5000 employees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work in the projects. According to the Union, the workmen engaged in Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" have completed minimum 8 years and maximum 20 years of service but they were not regularized nor paid regular wages as per the revision of pay scales. Consequently, the workmen started demanding regular pay scales and their regularization in service. On the other hand, the Corporation resorted to retrenchment of workmen which caused serious industrial unrest and ultimately the Union took up the matter and held discussions with the Corporation. Since the discussion failed, an industrial dispute was raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Nagpur who held various conciliation meetings with both the parties. Even the conciliation proceedings failed. Thus the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitted a failure report to the Ministry of Labour, who in turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government IndustrialcumLabour Court, Jabalpur vide order dated 7.1.1993. The question referred to the Tribunal reads thus: "Whether the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Nagpur in not regularizing the services of S/Shri A.K. Janson 2144 others (as per Annexures `A' attached) and depriving them all fringe benefits like permanent workers is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date? AND Whether the action of the management of MECL, Nagpur in not providing employment to Smt. Surya Gayee and 63 others (As per Annexure B attached) as the legal heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds is justified? If not, to what relief are they entitled to and from what date?" The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of both the parties and considering the arguments, vide its award dated 24.3.1998, held that all the workmen in dispute, whose names have been shown in Annexure "A" i.e. 2145 workmen, be regularized in the services of respondent No.1 within a period of three months and further held that the workmen were entitled for regular pay scales, increments, dearness allowance, leave facility from the date of publication of the award. The Tribunal, however, did not award the regularization and regular pay scales from the date of the order of reference. The Tribunal answered the issue in relation to the appointments of heirs/dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, in favour of the Union and thus issued consequential directions to the respondentCorporation in that behalf. The award was published on 13.4.1998. The Corporation preferred writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 1981 of 1998 challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Union also preferred Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 5423 of 1998 challenging the Award dated 24.3.1998 to the extent the Tribunal refused the relief of regular pay scales and regularization of the w