Bombay HC Grants Regularisation to Nine ONGC Workers After 10 Years of Service; Modifies CGIT’s 240-Day Permanency Award

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 15.09.2026

Bombay HC Grants Regularisation to Nine ONGC Workers After 10 Years of Service; Modifies CGIT’s 240-Day Permanency Award

Mumbai, 9 September 2026: The Bombay High Court has granted significant relief to nine long-serving workers of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), holding that they cannot be denied regularisation after having continuously served the public sector undertaking for more than two decades following a selection process through the Employment Exchange.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II & Anr., Writ Petition No. 13673 of 2025, partly allowed ONGC’s petition but modified, rather than set aside, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal’s award. The judgment bears neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:37194.

The High Court held that the workers should be treated as being in regular service of ONGC from the date on which each completed 10 years of service, with consequential benefits to be granted within eight weeks.

CGIT Had Granted Permanency After 240 Days

• The dispute originated from the employment of Field Operators/Assistant Rigmen by ONGC for its offshore exploration and production operations.
• In 2000-01, ONGC sought candidates through the Employment Exchange for fixed-tenure engagements. Candidates were required to possess prescribed technical qualifications and were subjected to a written test, interview and medical examination before appointment. Their engagement was nevertheless expressly structured as fixed-term employment.
• In 2008, a total of 79 workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking regularisation. During the lengthy proceedings, 55 were appointed on a regular basis through recruitment exercises, while 15 dropped out due to retirement, death or resignation. The dispute eventually survived in respect of nine workers.
• On 24 April 2025, CGIT-II, Mumbai held that the nine employees were entitled to permanency and directed ONGC to make them permanent from the date of completion of 240 days of service, together with financial benefits.
• ONGC challenged that award before the Bombay High Court.

ONGC: Fixed-Term Employees Cannot Claim Permanency

• ONGC argued that the workers were consciously engaged on fixed tenure because oil exploration was uncertain and manpower requirements could not be predicted permanently.
• It relied substantially upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, contending that long service by itself cannot create a right to regularisation where appointments do not conform to the constitutional requirements governing public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• ONGC further argued that granting permanency merely after completion of 240 days effectively amounted to the Tribunal creating posts on ONGC’s establishment, which an industrial adjudicator could not do.

ONGC Also Questioned Application of Industrial Disputes Act to Offshore Rigs

• A significant jurisdictional argument was raised by ONGC.
• It contended that the workers were deployed on oil rigs located beyond 12 nautical miles from the Indian coastline, and therefore the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply to them. ONGC relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. v. Union of India, (2008) 11 SCC 439.
• The Bombay High Court firmly rejected this contention.
• The Court noted that the workers’ appointments were made in Mumbai and that decisions concerning their service conditions were also taken in Mumbai. Disciplinary proceedings concerning employees working on the rigs were conducted within Indian territory under Indian law.
• The High Court therefore held that ONGC’s objection to the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and the CGIT’s jurisdiction was baseless.

Aban Loyd Judgment Distinguished

• The Court specifically distinguished Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore.
• It observed that the Supreme Court case concerned the applicability of customs duty to spare parts required for oil rigs situated outside territorial waters but within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone. In that case, the Supreme Court had held customs duty applicable by virtue of extension of Indian territory to designated areas in the EEZ.
• The Bombay High Court held that this principle had no application to the present industrial dispute concerning workers who were merely deployed on offshore rigs while their appointments and service-related decisions were made in Mumbai.

Workers Were Not ‘Backdoor Entrants’: High Court

• A crucial finding in favour of the workers was that their appointments could not be characterised as classic “backdoor entries.”
• ONGC itself admitted that the workers had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Eligibility requirements were prescribed, and the candidates underwent a written test, interview and medical fitness examination before being selected.
• The High Court therefore observed that their appointments could, at the highest, be characterised as irregular rather than appointments completely dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment.
• The Court further noted that the nine employees had continued working without any real break for over a quarter of a century. Repeated issuance of fresh fixed-tenure appointment orders did not, in the Court’s view, constitute an actual break in their service.

25 Years of Continuous Service Showed Continuing Need for Workers

• The High Court attached considerable importance to the factual reality of the employment relationship.
• It observed that the nine workers had remained in continuous service for over 25 years, making it difficult to accept that their engagement was exclusively for a short-term or specific project or that ONGC had no continuing requirement for their services.
• The evidence instead suggested that the workers had become an asset to ONGC and had continued to work in adverse conditions on offshore oil rigs for more than two decades.
• The Court also rejected the contention that the workers had lost their right to seek regularisation merely because they had participated in subsequent regular recruitment exercises. Their participation in such selection processes did not estop them from pursuing their pending claim.

High Court Applies Exception Under Paragraph 53 of Umadevi

• While recognising the general rule laid down in Umadevi (3) against regularising appointments made outside the constitutional scheme, the High Court relied upon the important exception recognised in paragraph 53 of that judgment.
• Paragraph 53 contemplates consideration of regularisation in cases involving irregular, as distinguished from illegal, appointments of duly qualified persons who have served for 10 years or more, subject to the conditions explained by the Supreme Court.
• In the present case, the High Court noted that the workers were qualified and had undergone a selection process after sponsorship through the Employment Exchange.
• Their continued engagement for over 25 years also gave rise, in the Court’s assessment, to an inference regarding ONGC’s continuing requirement for their services.
• Accordingly, the Court held that the benefit of regularisation could not be denied to them.

Industrial Tribunal Cannot Grant Permanency Merely After 240 Days

• The High Court, however, did not fully approve the CGIT’s award.
• It held that the Tribunal had erred in directing that the workers be made permanent merely upon completion of 240 days of service.
• The Court reasoned that such a direction would effectively amount to creation of posts on the establishment of ONGC, a power that an industrial adjudicator does not possess in relation to a State instrumentality.
• The Court relied upon Municipal Council Tirora v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867, where it had been held that completion of 240 days by itself cannot confer a right to permanency in the absence of the necessary legal conditions concerning posts and recruitment.
• The High Court also referred to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI, (2014) 7 SCC 190, while considering the applicability of Umadevi principles to industrial adjudication involving government entities and instrumentalities.

Regularisation From Completion of 10 Years, Not 240 Days

• The Court ultimately struck a balance between the constitutional restrictions governing public employment and the peculiar facts of the workers’ long-standing engagement.
• It held that while permanency merely upon completion of 240 days was legally impermissible, the nine workers could receive the benefit of regularisation after completing 10 years of service, applying the exception recognised in Umadevi.
• The Court also rejected ONGC’s contention that such relief necessarily amounted to impermissible retrospective regularisation. Since the industrial reference itself had been made in 2008 and the workers would complete 10 years around or after 2011, the Court observed that the relief would operate after the reference and could not, in that sense, be characterised as retrospective.

Bombay High Court Modifies CGIT Award

• Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed ONGC’s writ petition and modified the CGIT award dated 24 April 2025.
• Instead of granting permanency from completion of 240 days, the Court directed that all nine workers be treated as being in regular service of ONGC with effect from the date on which they completed 10 years of service from their initial engagements.
• ONGC was further directed to grant them all consequential benefits within eight weeks. No order as to costs was passed.

Key Legal Principles Emerging From the Judgment

The judgment draws an important distinction between illegal/backdoor appointments and irregular appointments. While long continuation alone does not create a right to regularisation, employees who entered service through a genuine selection mechanism and whose appointments are irregular rather than illegal may, in appropriate circumstances, fall within the Umadevi paragraph 53 framework.

At the same time, the judgment makes clear that completion of 240 days does not automatically create a right to permanency in a State instrumentality, particularly where doing so would effectively require an industrial adjudicator to create posts.

The decision is also significant for offshore employment disputes. Merely because employees are physically deployed on offshore installations beyond 12 nautical miles does not, on the facts of this case, displace Indian labour law where their appointments and service conditions are fundamentally administered within India.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com