Bombay High Court Grants Regularisation to Nine ONGC Offshore Workers After 25 Years; Sets Aside 240-Day Permanency Direction and Orders Regular Service After Ten Years’ Service
Bombay High Court Rejects ONGC’s ‘Backdoor Entrants’ Argument; Grants Regularisation to Nine Field Operators Who Served Continuously for Over 25 Years
Facts
ONGC challenged an Award dated 24 April 2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai, which had directed that nine employees be made permanent from the date they completed 240 days of service, together with consequential financial benefits.
The workers had originally been engaged around 2000–01 as Assistant Rigmen/Field Operators for ONGC’s offshore drilling and production operations. Their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they possessed prescribed technical qualifications, and they underwent a written test, interview and medical examination. Their appointments, however, were made for fixed tenures, which were repeatedly renewed.
In 2008, 79 workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking regularisation. During the pendency of the reference, 55 secured regular appointments through recruitment processes, while 15 ceased to pursue the dispute because of retirement, death or resignation. The proceedings therefore ultimately continued for nine workers.
By the time the High Court decided the case, the nine workers had effectively remained in continuous employment for more than 25 years, notwithstanding ONGC periodically issuing fresh fixed-tenure appointment orders.
Issues
The principal issues were whether the Industrial Disputes Act and CGIT jurisdiction applied to workers deployed on ONGC offshore rigs beyond 12 nautical miles; whether the workers were illegally appointed “backdoor entrants” incapable of regularisation under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3); whether their continuous fixed-term service could justify regularisation; and whether the Tribunal could grant permanency merely upon completion of 240 days of service.
The Court also examined the distinction between regularisation and permanency, and whether the workers could be brought within the exception recognised in paragraph 53 of Umadevi.
Petitioner’s Arguments
ONGC argued that the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply because the workers were deployed on oil rigs situated beyond 12 nautical miles from the Indian coastline. It therefore contended that CGIT lacked jurisdiction.
ONGC further argued that the reference concerned “regularisation”, whereas the Tribunal had granted “permanency”, which are legally distinct concepts.
It relied heavily on Umadevi (3) to contend that long service cannot by itself confer a right to regularisation where appointments were not made in accordance with Articles 14 and 16. ONGC characterised the nine workers as temporary fixed-term employees who had not been appointed through open competitive recruitment.
It also argued that many of the workers had subsequently participated in regular recruitment processes but failed, while 55 similarly placed workers had obtained regular appointments by succeeding in those processes. According to ONGC, this showed that regular recruitment—not judicial regularisation—was the proper route.
Finally, ONGC submitted that the Tribunal could not create posts by directing permanency immediately upon completion of 240 days.
Respondent’s Arguments
The workers contended that the jurisdiction objection was untenable because their appointments were made at Mumbai, all employment and disciplinary decisions were taken at ONGC’s Mumbai offices, and only their physical deployment was on offshore rigs.
They denied being backdoor entrants. Their names had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they met the prescribed qualifications, underwent written examinations and interviews, and were medically examined before appointment.
They argued that they had continuously served ONGC for about 25 years, received employment benefits such as Provident Fund and identity cards, and performed skilled operational work. Some had accumulated such experience that they trained other personnel.
They further contended that participating in subsequent recruitment exercises did not extinguish their pre-existing claim for regularisation.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court began with the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3).
Ordinarily, appointments made outside the constitutional scheme of public employment cannot be regularised merely because the employees have continued for a long period. Public posts must ordinarily be filled through recruitment processes compliant with Articles 14 and 16.
However, paragraph 53 of Umadevi recognises a limited exception for irregular, as opposed to illegal, appointments of qualified persons who have worked for ten years or more in sanctioned posts without protection of interim court orders.
The High Court found the present appointments were, at the highest, irregular and not illegal. The workers were qualified, had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were selected after written tests and other screening. They therefore could not fairly be described as backdoor entrants.
The Court further held that repeatedly issuing fresh tenure appointments did not change the practical reality of continuous service.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied principally on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) to distinguish illegal appointments from irregular appointments capable of regularisation.
It also considered Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI, which recognise that the constitutional limitations identified in Umadevi apply even to industrial adjudication involving State instrumentalities. Regularisation cannot be ordered in disregard of Articles 14 and 16.
At the same time, those principles did not prevent relief where the circumstances brought the workers within the recognised Umadevi exception.
The Court also relied upon Municipal Council Tirora v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade for the proposition that an industrial adjudicator cannot effectively create sanctioned posts merely because a workman has completed 240 days of service.
ONGC relied on Registrar General of India v. Thippa Shetty against retrospective regularisation. The High Court distinguished that case, observing that there the concern was disturbance of seniority of regularly appointed employees. Here, granting regularisation from completion of ten years would operate from around 2011, after the industrial reference had already been made in 2008.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court strongly rejected ONGC’s jurisdictional objection.
Although the workers physically worked on offshore rigs beyond 12 nautical miles, their appointment orders were issued in Mumbai, service conditions were controlled from Mumbai, and disciplinary proceedings were also undertaken in India. The Court therefore held that it was untenable to argue that Indian labour law did not govern their employment.
On regularisation, the Court found that these workers were fundamentally different from persons casually or informally engaged without any recruitment process. They had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, possessed required qualifications, cleared written tests and underwent selection and medical examination.
The Court found particularly significant the fact that they had remained continuously employed for over a quarter of a century. Such prolonged engagement undermined ONGC’s case that they were required only temporarily for uncertain or project-specific exploration activities. The evidence instead demonstrated a continuing organisational requirement for their services.
The Court also rejected the argument that participation in subsequent regular selection processes estopped the workers from seeking regularisation. Since the reference itself remained pending for 17 years, the workers could legitimately attempt to secure regular employment without thereby abandoning their pending legal claim.
However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s direction granting permanency from completion of 240 days. Such an order was akin to directing creation of posts, something an industrial adjudicator could not do in relation to a State instrumentality.
The appropriate relief was instead to apply the Umadevi exception and grant the workers regularisation from completion of ten years of service.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed ONGC’s writ petition.
It set aside the portion of the CGIT Award directing that the nine workers be made permanent from completion of 240 days of service.
However, it rejected ONGC’s attempt to completely deny regular status to the workers and modified the Award by directing that all nine employees be treated as being in regular service of ONGC from the date each completed ten years of service from their initial engagement.
All consequential benefits were directed to be granted within eight weeks. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details
Case: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II & Anr.
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13673 of 2025
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37194
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Reserved: 27 August 2026
Pronounced: 9 September 2026
Result: Petition partly allowed; 240-day permanency direction modified; nine ONGC workers regularised from completion of ten years’ service with consequential benefits within eight weeks.
