Tripura HC Refuses Regularization To ONGC Field Operator Lacking a Sanctioned Post

Exposing the limits of writ jurisdiction in ad-hoc employment disputes, the High Court held that contractual workers engaged without sanctioned posts or defined recruitment rules cannot claim automatic regularization. Dismissing the plea of a long-serving Field Operator, the Court underscored that contractual tenure accepted without protest over a decade cannot later be converted into permanent status through summary writ proceedings.

Justice S. Datta Purkayastha delivered the judgment, considering a writ petition filed by a Field Operator against the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). The petitioner, engaged on a four-year tenure basis since 2010 through oral interviews, sought regularization with retrospective effect, equal pay at par with regular employees, and an extension of his service age limit from 50 to 60 years.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court observed that the petitioner was engaged through oral interviews and failed to place on record any service rules, statutory recruitment procedures, or proof that the post of Field Operator was a sanctioned position within ONGC. Furthermore, the petitioner never raised any grievance regarding the contractual nature of his appointment throughout his tenure from 2010 to 2022 and consciously accepted his last engagement letter.

The Court noted that several crucial legal questions regarding regularization of temporary workers, unfair labour practice, and the scope of Standing Orders in ONGC are currently pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

The Court issued no positive mandamus or operational directions against ONGC, but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The Court has following directions:

"However, this order will not stand as a bar for the petitioner, if he approaches the Labour Tribunal /Court on any occasion in accordance with law ventilating his grievances there and, in that case, the said authority will decide the matter without being influenced by this decision inasmuch as one of the prime ground of dismissal of this writ petition is absence of material particulars to decide the involved issues."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The petitioner in this case was engaged through oral interview whereas, as per the decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in both the cases as discussed above, the petitioners therein were engaged through written examination. What are the requisite qualification(s) for a Field Operator is also not disclosed herein. It is also not stated by the petitioner clearly whether he possesses the requisite qualification for the said post or not. No service rules guiding the recruitment procedure of Field Operator is also submitted... If there is no sanctioned post, it means he was not engaged against any sanctioned post... During his entire tenure of service from 2010, he never raised any grievance regarding nature of his appointment and never claimed any regularization and consciously he accepted his last engagement..."

Background

The petitioner was engaged by ONGC as a Field Operator on a tenure basis for four years in 2010, which was extended periodically until February 2025 with a condition that service would end upon attaining 50 years of age. Citing continuous service of more than 240 days each year under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner argued that his work was perennial in nature and that ONGC engaged in unequal bargaining.

The petitioner relied on rulings including ONGC Field Operators Union vs. ONGC Ltd., Vasapu L. Kumar vs. ONGC Field Operators Union, The General Secretary, ONGC All Employees Union and others vs. the Assistant Manager, ONGC Limited and another, Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, and State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others ( "(2010) 9 SCC 247": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 230). Conversely, ONGC contended that the petitioner was an ad-hoc tenure employee who had executed undertakings not to claim regularization, that no sanctioned post of Field Operator exists, and that the petition suffered from delay and laches. ONGC also pointed out that issues surrounding Clause 2(ii) of its Certified Standing Orders and the interplay between industrial law and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others ( "(2006) 4 SCC 1": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 148) are currently referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court following Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Krishan Gopal and others, which noticed conflicting interpretations in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others, Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. Engg. Mazdoor Sangh, and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others. ONGC further relied on Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another vs. Magi H Desai.

The High Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner on facts, noting that the petitioner lacked material evidence regarding sanctioned posts and qualification standards, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition while preserving liberty to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(C) No.749 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1079
Case Title: Sri Subhasish Sarkar v. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. R. Purkayastha, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate; Mr. Soumen Saha, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TRI) 39