Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. N.L.C.INDCO SERVE Thozhilalar Uzhiyear Sangam

7.N.L.C.Labour & Staff Union, (C.I.T.U).Regn No.1803, Neyveli Lignite Corpn.Ltd, Neyveli, rep,by its General Secretary.8.N.L.C.Amalgamated Labour & Staff Union (H.M.S.), Regd.No.224/SAT, Neyveli, rep.by its General Secretary9.N.L.C.Anna Workers & Staff Union, Reg.No.3816 (ATP), Neyveli, rep.by its General Secretary * * *Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent toset aside the order passed in W.P.No.8 of 1996 dated 15.05.2002.* * *Writ Appeal No:2045 of 2002 For Appellant : Mr.N.A.K.Sharma For R-1 : Mr.R.Singgaravelan For others: No appearance Writ Appeal No.2529 of 2002For Appellant : Mr.A.V.BharathiFor R-1: Mr.R.SinggaravelanFor R-2: Mr.N.A.K.SharmaOthers: No appearance * * *COMMON JUDGMENTS.PALANIVELU, J.Both these writ appeals are directed against the order of thelearned single Judge dated 15.5.2002, made in W.P.No.8 of 1996.The said writ petition was filed by N.L.C.INDCO SERVE ThozhilalarUzhiyar Sangam, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear thefirst respondent therein viz. the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, its https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ men, officers, agents and servants from absorbing any contractlabour or any other employee either permanently or temporarily inthe first respondent Corporation without following the seniority onthe basis of the date of entry in Corporation either as a contractlabour or directly and consequently direct the first respondent toabsorb and regularise the members of the petitioner union asemployees of the first respondent Corporation with all monetary andservice benefits with effect from the date of entry into service inthe first respondent Corporation either as a contract labour orotherwise.2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties isreferred to as per their ranking in the Writ Petition No.8 of 1996.3. The avernments of the Writ Petition, in short, are asfollows:-The first respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking.N.L.C.Indco Serve Thozhilalar uzhigar Sangam is represented by itsPresident N.Narayanan. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NLC) and the Manging Director N.L.C.IndcoServe are the first and the third respondents in the Writ Petition.The second respondent therein is Assistant Commissioner of Labour(C), Shastri Bhavan at Madras. The fourth to tenth respondents arevarious labour unions, whose members are employees of NLC. Themembers of the petitioner union are engaged through contractors asemployees for the effective functioning of the first respondent.They had been continuously employed as such ranging from 15 yearsto 19 years. As per the provisions of the labour welfarelegislations such as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by this time,the first respondent should have absorbed all the members of thepetitioner union as permanent employees on regular basis and thefailure on their part would amount to “unfair labour practice”.The NLC Industrial Co-operative Service Society Limited (in shortas NLC.) was formed on 10.05.1990 with the below mentioned object:-“The object of the society is to take and executevarious items of work entrusted to it by the NeyveliLignite Corporation Ltd., within its area of operationand to provide employment to its members/workers andwork for economic uplift bearing in mind their object,the workman shall always endeavour for satisfying theNeyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., by diligent andefficient work.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The said society is a registered one under the Tamil NaduCo-operative Societies Act. The N.L.C.Indco serve is a Statewithin the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India.There are nearly 1,400 employees, who are the members of thepetitioner union. It is the duty of N.L.C.Indco Serve toregularise the members in the first respondent Corporation on thebasis of seniority fixed on the strength of the date of entry intoservice therein either through contractors or directly. Thepetitioner’s union members are entitled to claim absorption withseniority. Hence, the petitioner union forwarded a writtenrepresentation dated 29.06.1994 to the Chief Minister’s Cell andvarious authorities narrating their grievances in detail. Thefirst respondent even after getting it have not taken any steps.Again, a consideration petition dated 24.04.1995 was given to thesecond respondent. On the basis of the consideration petition,conciliation proceedings were initiated. However, no effectiveresult has been achieved and the Management is keeping quietwithout appearance. 5. When the matter stood thus, respondents 1 and 3 areabsorbing members of N.L.C.Indco Serve as well as non-members, asper their whims and fancies without following any principleincluding the one of seniority. For instance, first member of theN.L.C.Indco Serve himself remains unabsorbed, even after he has putin nearly 20 years of service. When consideration petition ispending, the first respondent ought to have waited for the outcomeof the same. But, without appearing before the second respondent,they are now proceeding with the absorption. The act of 1 and 3respondents is discriminatory and bristled with arbitrariness beingviolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India andalso is with a malafide motives. There is no difference betweenthe regular employee and the contract labourers, since both havebeen doing the same duties and infact, the contract labourers areturning out more work. Hence, the writ petition.6. The contentions contained in the counter affidavit of thefirst respondent, in brief, are as follows:-N.L.C. is a Company registered under the Company’s Act, 1956.For effective functioning of the Corporation regular workforce ofskilled and un-skilled were recruited and duly employed. To meetcontingent needs, there has been a practice of employing contractlabourers with respect to the above said two categories of workmen. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The practice of employing contract labourer had many pitfalls.There were complaints that the contractors did not disperse wagesdue to the labourer even though the amounts were duly billed on NLCand paid by NLC. After detailed consideration, N.L.C.IndoserveCorporation, a Society, was registered on 10.05.1990. Pursuant tothe advent of N.L.C.Indoserve, the requirement of contract labourcame down substantially. The said society is a separate legalentity, which is bound by its own bye-laws and its affairs aremanaged by a Special Officer appointed for the purpose by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu, even though there is only one recognisedTrade Union, the numerous other unions are in existence withrespect to different groups of employees of NLC. Keeping in view,the larger interests of the employees and also to ensure industrialharmony, all associations with their employees are controlled byNLC with a Joint Council of Unions, which consists the followingseven unions and they represent over 90% of the employees. The name of the unions are as follows:-“1.THO MU SA (NLC Workers’ Progressive Union) 2.ANNA THO MU SA (NLC Anna Workers’ & Staff Union)3.I.N.T.U.C.(NLC National Workers’ Union) 4.N.T.U (National Trade Union )5.EMP.UNION (NLC Employees’ Union).6.(H.M.S) (NLC Amalgamated Workers’ Union)7.CITU (NLC Labour & Staff Union).”7. From 1993 onwards, the demand for absorption of N.L.C.Indcoserve workers came to be canvassed by the Joint Council of Unionsand discussions took place between NLC and the Joint Council ofUnions, which culminated in reaching a settlement in terms ofSection 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, on 18.05.1995.Under the settlement, the management agreed to absorb N.L.C.Indcoserve workers in stages. The first stage involved absorptionover a period of five years, of all employees in the productionunits, both skilled and un-skilled subject to fulfilling otherconditions. For this purpose, a list of 700 candidates was drawnup and they were subjected to a test and interview. Before anyappointment could be effected, the writ petition was filed andinterim stay was also obtained resulting standstill of appointmentprocess. The details of service rendered by the persons ascontract labourers under private contractors are not maintained bythe Corporation, nor the same have been supplied to it. It is notpossible to ascertain as to how long the labourers worked as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contract labourers with the unions. The petitioner union hasomitted to supply details of its members. If the petitioner unionhas got any grievance, it ought to be agitated by them separatelythrough N.L.C.Indoserve and not from the Corporation. The claim ofpetitioner union that N.L.C.Indoserve is a State within the meaningof Article 12 is misconceived and does not stand the test of law orlogic. The above said statement contemplates only absorption andnot regularisation. The concept of seniority does not arise in theguise of absorption. In any case, the seniority in N.L.C of thoseabsorbed will reckon from the date of absorption and not from anyearlier date. It is denied that this respondent deliberately keptaway from any such conciliation proceedings. The knowledge ofpending conciliation proceedings came to be known to NLC only fromthe writ petition. The Writ Petition is not maintainable since thepetitioner should exhaust the remedy before forum of conciliationmachinery before rushing to the Court. There is no malafide orarbitrary exercise of powers of NLC. The proposed absorptioncovers only N.L.C.Indco serve employees and does not cover othercontract labour employees. Section 12(3) settlement is legal andvalid which is not vitiated merely because petitioner’s union wasnot a party to it. It is settled principles of law that unionsrepresenting existing workers are within their rights to espousethe cause of contract labour for absorption. Hence, the petitionis liable to be dismissed.8. The learned single Judge, by the order dated 15.5.2002, haspartly allowed the said writ petition. The operative portion of thesaid order of the learned single Judge is extracted below:-“For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow thewrit petition to extent of giving a direction that whileconsidering the question of regular absorption in thecategories indicated in the settlement, the case of allthe other workers coming within the eligible categoryshould be considered according to the seniority and thecase of workers should be ignored merely because he hasnot been admitted as a member of INDCO SERVE. It is madeclear that the persons who have already been absorbedafter stay order was vacated should not be disturbed bythis order.”As against the said order of the learned single Judge, W.A.No.2045of 2002 has been preferred by the first respondent therein viz. theNeyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and W.A.No.2529 of 2002 hasbeen preferred by the respondents 9 and 10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. For better understanding of the dispute in issue, narrationof the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act isindispensable, which goes thus:-“i) It is agreed by the Management that the workersengaged by Indco Serve in various production units as on18.05.1995 in N.L.C. shall be absorbed in a phased mannerover a period of five years. This absorptionwill,however, depend upon requirements, qualifications,length and nature of experience of the persons so engagedand subject to a test and selection by competentexecutives. ii) It is agreed by the parties that it will be left tothe Management as to how many workers are to be absorbedfrom one particular unit at a time and the phases in whichthe process is to be done and the periodicity when thequestion of absorption will be reviewed and decided.iii) It is further agreed that based on the experience ofworking of this system during the aforesaid five years,the issue relating to remaining workers engaged by IndcoServe in non-production Units will be taken up fordiscussion.”10. The contention of the first respondent Corporation is twopronged. The first one is, when the conciliation proceedings werepending before the competent labour officer, seeking remedy beforethe court of law is not legally sustainable. Nextly, thepetitioner’s union members are not entitled to claim seniority,since the length of service of each and every individual could notbe ascertained.11. It is admitted fact that the first respondent Corporationhas whole-heartedly accepted to entertain the request of thepetitioner’s union to the extent of absorbing its members, but noton the basis of seniority. Both the learned counsel appearing forrespective parties have put forth their contentions vehemently soas to maintain their claims. As far as the first attack of NLC isconcerned, it is the reply emanates from the petitioner union that12(3) settlement dated 18.05.1995 came to existence behind the backof NLC Indco Serve, which had no knowledge about it and it is notbinding upon the society or the petitioner’s union. It is to beborne in mind here that the conciliation proceedings were initiated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at the behest of the petitioner’s union for absorption withseniority. In that course, NLC entered into the settlement with theCouncil of Joint Unions comprising seven other Labour Unions, whichare parties to the Writ Petition. The reason for non-inclusion oromission of N.L.C. is not explained. Even though the subsequentdevelopments happened in the first respondent Corporation would goto the effect that absorption process was undertaken by them, itwill not justify the non-inclusion of N.L.C.Indcoserve.12. It is stated that as per the agreement reached theabsorption was made in three phases. In the first and second phase,during 1996 and 1997, Indcoserve Workmen numbering 774 and 716 wereabsorbed respectively and there was a proposal for the third andfourth phases to absorb 1500 Indco Serve workmen over a period of12 months from December,1999. It is contended that the benefitunder the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act is being dulyextended to Indco Serve workmen and the objection that it was notadded as a party is futile. 13. We are unable to countenance such contention for thereason that though absorptions were made proposed by NLC in termsof settlement under Section, 12(3) of the Act, it does not involveelement of seniority in the process. So, it could not be statedthat the steps taken in this respect by NLC would reflect the claimof the petitioners union. It can also be stated that, hadIndcoserve been represented during the negotiations, the terms ofsettlement would have been different and the litigation might nothave come up before the Court. The necessary corollary thereof is,absence of NLC Indco Serve in the conciliation proceedings ismanifest which leads to vitiation of the settlement.14. The other limb of contention of NLC is, the petitioner’sunion should have exhausted the remedy from the second respondentor through the forum constituted under labour legislations, butseeking writ jurisdiction of this Court is not tenable. 15. At the outset, the petitioner union had given a writtenrepresentation on 29.06.1994 to the Chief Minister’s Cell andvarious authorities. It is contended that NLC had turned Nelson’seye to the claim of the petitioner union. Again on 24.04.1995, aconsideration petition was forwarded by the petitioner union to thesecond respondent and on the basis of which, the conciliationproceedings were initiated. It is quintessence and outcry of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner union that when the conciliation proceedings werepending before the labour authority, NLC started absorbing themembers of Indco Serve and non-members as a whole as per theirwhims and caprice flouting the principle of seniority, which isprejudicial to the interests of NLC Indco Serve workmen includingpetitioner union. When NLC is in utter disregard of request forfixing seniority for workmen in the process of absorption, there isno impediment for the petitioner union to seek remedy from theCourt of Law. The petitioner union contends further, coupled withthe circumstances, where the petitioner union was deliberatelyignored in the deliberation for reaching settlement under Section12(3), invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court could very wellbe justified. We find considerable force in the above saidcontentions and observe that invoking the writ jurisdiction of thisCourt is quite appropriate.16. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the firstrespondent have taken us through the decisions of Hon’ble SupremeCourt with regard to the fixing of seniority during the process ofabsorption of workmen. Both of them relied upon a decision of theApex Court reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 648, in InderPal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others = (1985) II LLJ406, wherein Their Lordships were pleased to observe thatabsorption of workmen should be in order of length of continuousservice. In the said case, it is held as follows:-“6.To avoid violation of Art.14, the scientific andequitable way of implementing the scheme is for theRailway administration to prepare, a list of projectcasual labour with reference to each division of eachrailway and then start absorbing those with thelongest service. If in the process any adjustmentsare necessary, the same must be done. In giving thisdirection, we are considerably influenced by thestatutory recognition of a principle well known inindustrial jurisprudence that the men with the longestservice shall have priority over those who have joinedlater on. In other words, the principle of last comefirst go or to reverse it first come last go asenunciated in S.25-G of the Industrial DisputesAct,1947 has been accepted. We direct accordingly.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. While discussing the issue, the Supreme Courtcategorically laid down that the workmen with longest service shallhave priority over those who have joined later on. Hence, therequest for fixing seniority at the time of absorption holdslegally good.18. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Singgaravelan alsorelied upon the following two decisions of the Supreme Court insupport of his contention, in which the principles have been setout as follows:-1.In Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and anotherreported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 100, in paragraph 10,it is decided thus:-“In service, there could be only one norm forconfirmation or promotion of persons belonging to thesame cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promotedwithout considering the case of his senior. Anydeviation from this principle will have demoralisingeffect in service apart from being contrary to Art.16(1)of the Constitution.”2.In National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers,Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1995Supreme Court 1617, = 1995 Supp(3) SCC 152 in paragraph 6(6),it is held as follows:- “6.In the matter of absorption of Railway ParcelPorters or contract labour as permanent and regularRailway Parcel Porters, the persons who have worked forlonger periods as contract labour shall be preferred tothose who are put in shorter period of work.”19. The contention of learned counsel for the petitionergained momentum, while referring to the dictum laid down in theabove said rulings and he submitted that in the matter ofabsorption, non-consideration of seniority of the workmen is highlydetrimental and if seniority was not considered, then the juniorsto the particular workmen could become seniors in rank, who wouldconsequently be benefited with all the service conditions, by meansof which, the rights of the workmen would get affected. It is theprinciple laid down by the Supreme Court also that promotion orconfirmation of a junior would have demoralising effect in service,apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. In case, if the seniors are not found eligible to bepromoted or regularised in service, then the Management may embarkupon promoting the juniors for which there could be no stumblingblock. But, if the ability or caliber of the senior workman wasnot at all taken up for consideration and if the Managementproceeds to promote or regularise the junior members, it isclassical violation of the provisions of law. As far as the fact ofthe present case are concerned, there is no contention on the partof the first respondent to the effect that there is no eligiblesenior members.21. Learned Standing Counsel of the first respondentCorporation Mr.N.A.K.Sharma garnered support from the Judgments ofthe Supreme Court to strengthen his contentions. It is hissubmission that if the petitioner union is aggrieved by the termsof settlement and if the interpretation is injurious to theirrights in their opinion, they may very well refer the question toLabour Court or Tribunal as the case may be. Stressing this point,he cited 1988 LAB.I.C.1448 reported in Bieco Lawrie SramikKarmachari Union and others Vs. Biecco Lawrie Ltd and others.Paragraph 21 of the said judgment is extracted below:-“21. In any event, if there is any interpretation ofsettlement involved, as in the present case before me,the parties are at liberty to take recourse to theprovision of S.36A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which runs as follows:-“36A.Power to remove difficulty-If, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, anydifficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation ofany provision of an award or settlement, it may referthe question to such labour court, tribunal ornational tribunal, at it may think fit.”22. As for the petitioner’s union, they are not at all a partyto the settlement and hence the interpretation of the terms ofsettlement is not at all arising in this case. Conciliationproceedings were initiated only under the representation of thepetitioner’s union. In I.T.C.Ltd Workers Association Vs. The Manof I.T.C.Ltd reported in J.T.2002 (1) Supreme Court 511, the ApexCourt has formulated guidelines to the effect that in exceptionalcircumstances alone the settlement can be ignored and the question https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of non-inclusion of particular union will not form base forstriking down the settlement. The operative portion of the saidJudgment goes thus:-“21.What follows from a conspectus of these decisionsis that a settlement which is a product of collectivebargaining is entitled to due weight andconsideration, more so when a settlement is arrivedat in the course of conciliation proceeding. Thesettlement can only be ignored in exceptionalcircumstances viz., if it is demonstrably unjust,unfair or the result of mala fides such as corruptmotives on the part of those who were instrumental ineffecting the settlement. That apart, the settlementhas to be judged as a whole, taking an overall view.The various terms and clauses of settlement cannot beexamined in piecemeal and in vacuum.”23. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed that if thesettlement was unjust or unfair or the result of malafides, it canbe ignored. As far as the impugned settlement is concerned, itdoes not reflect the basic claim of the petitioner union. Viz.,the fixing of seniority. It is made clear herein that the terms ofsettlement do not contain the absorption with seniority. If thatbe so, it can be observed that it is an unjust settlement broughtwithout knowledge to the petitioner union and hence, theexceptional circumstance as held by the Apex Court has arisen toignore the settlement.24. Learned counsel for the first respondent also placed muchreliance upon the decision reported in J.T.2006(4) Supreme Court593, Transmission Corpn., A.P.Ltd & Others Vs. P.Ramachandra Rao &Another, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:-“16. As observed by this Court in Tata Engineering’s case(supra) a settlement cannot weigh in any golden scales andthe question whether it is just and fair has to beanswered on the basis of principles different from thosewhich comes into play when an industrial dispute is underadjudication. If the settlement had been arrived at by avast majority of concerned workers with their eyes openand was also accepted by them in its totality, it must bepresumed to be just and fair and not liable to be ignored https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ while deciding the reference made under the Act merelybecause a small number of workers were not parties to itor refused to accept it or because the Tribunal was on theopinion that the workers deserved marginally higheremoluments than they themselves though they did. Thedecision in Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1977 (2) SCR 15)was followed.”25. While referring the decision, it is argued that since alarge number of trade unions participated in the conciliationproceedings and brought the settlement, merely because limitedmembers did not know about the existence of the settlement, thesaid circumstance would in no way vitiate the same. But the factsin the present case are quite distinguishable. 26. It is an admitted fact that NLC Indco Serve and thepetitioner’s union contend that a large number of members areavailable with them and they are not few nor small number ofmembers. Hence, the first respondent cannot take recourse to theabove said decision.27. We have given our anxious consideration to the respectivecontentions. It is not the question of scuttling the settlement byan unorganised group of contract labourers. The petitioner union isan organised one and it is duly registered under the Trade UnionsAct,1926. By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated thatNLC Indco Serve constitutes a minority union. On the face of it,the settlement appears to discourage the claim of the petitioner’sunion with regard to the aspect of seniority. The first respondenthas failed to show that the settlement was fair and just and innone of the decisions relied by the first respondent it is ruledthat the matter of seniority could be skipped, while the process ofabsorption of workers who have put in long service in theestablishment. 28. Per contra, the decisions which were cited by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner have authoritatively hold that thefixation of seniority at the time of absorption is essential oneand non-observation of which would be violative of the provisionsof the Constitution.29. The first respondent Corporation would contend that theydo not have the particulars of service of the contract labourers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with them and it would be a difficult and cumbersome process toascertain them. However, a reply is projected from the petitionerunion that since the wages had been paid by the Corporation,definitely they should have been maintaining the accounts and namesof the contractors and the employees supplied by them, withreference to the dates of their employment. The said contention isacceptable. The petitioner has also produced list of its employeeswith relevant particulars in the additional typed set of papers.30. The bottom line contention of the petitioner union is thatthe first respondent Corporation is bound to render seniority tothe employees proposed to be absorbed. The absorption is theconcept based on the employment of the employees, who had alreadyserved under the establishment. If there were no previousrelationship with the establishment, there would be no question of“absorption” by it. In this context, it ought to be observed thatwhen an employee is entitled for absorption, he is also eligible toget seniority duly fixed from the date of his original appointment.He can in no way be deprived of his past service rendered in theestablishment. There could be no legal basis to strip the employeeoff the entitlement to get seniority. If there be any absorption,the necessary corollary is that he is entitled to get seniority.The previous service with the establishment shall be counted forthe purpose of determining his seniority and the said right cannotbe defeated or jeopardised. 31. When the employees were entitled to get the senioritylegally, if they are denied such conferment, the doctrine of‘legitimate expectation’ would come to play and denial of seniorityto the workmen eligible for it, the said expectation gets a backseat. In this matter, the Corporation does not put forth any pleato the effect that meritorious junior workmen could be left out, ifthe employees with the past service were given seniority. In sucha case, ‘legitimate expectation’ of the aspiring employees must berespected. If seniority is denied to the workmen their ‘legitimateexpectation’ dashes off its hopes. It is the pleading of theCorporation, that, to meet contingent needs, there has beenpractice of employing contract labour both with respect to skilledand unskilled duties. If that be so, though they were paid by theCorporation for service rendered to it, still there had been abondage to the establishment. In other words, it may be stated,had the Corporation recruited the employees on a regular basis, itmight have granted all the privileges and attendant benefitsincluding seniority to them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. No doubt, the right to seek seniority is not a vestedright in a workman. But, it is an acquired right, which cannot betaken away by operation of valid law. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while laying down the dictum tobe adopted for reckoning the seniority, observed in the case ofAshok Gulati and others Vs B.S.Jain and others reported in AIR 1987Supreme Court 424., as follows:-“22. According to the accepted canons of servicejurisprudence, seniority of a person appointed mustbe reckoned from the date he becomes a member of theservice. The date from which seniority is to bereckoned may be laid down by rules or instructions(a) on the basis of the date of appointment (b) onthe basis of confirmation (c) on the basis ofregularisation of service (d) on the basis of lengthof service or, (e) on any other reasonable basis.”The category “on any of the reasonable basis”, can be madeapplicable to the facts of the present case.34. We also express emphatically that the service in the pastfor all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on aregular basis. 35. It is well settled proposition that in the absence of anyrule, the length of continuous officiation is a principle ofdetermining the seniority. The Supreme Court in the case of Unionof India Vs. Ansusekhar Guin and others reported in AIR 1989Supreme Court Batch 377 = 1989 SCC (LS) 2004 has laid down thatcontinuous length of service for fixation of seniority is a wellsettled principle, in the absence of any prescribed rule fordetermination of seniority.36. Concededly, in this case, there is no rule existing inthe first respondent Corporation with regard to the serviceconditions pertaining to the contract labourers inclusive offixation of seniority. In such circumstance, the length ofprevious continuous service, in accordance with relevant labourlegislations, has to be taken for consideration to determine theseniority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

37. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered viewthat the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act is does not bindthe petitioner’s union. Consequently, the direction of the learnedsinge Judge stands confirmed since we do not find any infirmity todisturb or interfere with the same. The appeals are devoid ofmerits. They suffer dismissal.In fine, both these appeals are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected MPs are closed. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Elipe Dharma Rao, J.)After delivering the judgment, dismissing the writ appeals,the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation prayedthat sufficient time may be granted for compliance of the order.2. Accordingly, twelve weeks time is granted for complyingwith the directions as given by the learned single Judge.KbSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To:1.The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli-607 807.2.The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai.2 ccs to Mr.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate, SR.8376, 87772 ccs to Mr.N.A.K.Sharma, Advocate, SR.83661 cc to M/s.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate, SR.8229la (co)dv/13.3.W.A.Nos.2045 & 2529 of 2002