(1.) BOTH the writ petitions being inter -connected, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. While in WP(C) No. 3522/2000 (referred to as the first writ petition), the petitioner D.V.P.O.W. Association, represented by its President, has prayed for a direction to the respondents No.1 to 4 to fully implement the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in reference case No. 1(C) / 1989, in WP(C) No. 6096/2002 (hereinafter referred to as 2nd writ petition), filed by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ONGC), represented by its Executive Director, has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the award dated 1.6.2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in reference case No. 1(C)/1997. In both the awards passed by the learned Tribunal, there is direction for regularisation of the services of the workmen involved. So far as the first award dated 12.3.1991 passed in reference case No. 1(C) / 1989 involved in WP(C) No. 3522/2000 is concerned, the same has been implemented, although disputes have been raised in the writ petition questioning the manner and method of such implementation. The second award dated 1.6.2001 passed in reference case No. 1 (C)/1997 is yet to be implemented and presently under challenge in the second writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel led by Mr. R.P. Kakati, learned senior counsel appearing in the first writ petition as well as Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing in the second writ petition. I have also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 i.e. the ONGC Workers Association represented by its General Secretary, representing 37 workmen / beneficiaries of the second award dated 1.6.2001. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the learned Tribunal.
(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid developments, the management of the ONGC has regularised the services of 189 Workers' by issuing different orders. While some of the orders were passed in 1994 pursuant to the aforesaid award and judgement, some orders had been passed even before that. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that altogether 189 workers had been regularised in their services. However, the petitioner in the first writ petition have questioned the methodology adopted in regularising the services of the workmen. According to the association, the services of the workmen ought to have been regularised with retrospective effect. Further, their claim is for regularisation of services against the posts which they had been holding at the time of passing the award.