Employers in relation to the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, through Mr v. IXD

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- Workmen has submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the Award has been passed on the basis of material available on record. It is submitted that the Appellants- Workmen were working for more than 20 years and above and they were performing the work like regular employees of the petitioner-company. It is submitted that several Workmen have died during pendency of the Reference Case. It is submitted that the concerned Workmen are contract workers and they are entitled to be regularized as per list given by the Union from the date of Reference Case by phase wise by the Management of BSL as well as SAIL. It is submitted that the Workmen were/are working in Coke Oven (Door Repair), Cold Rolling Mill (CRM), Shipping Department, Hot Strip Mill and Slabing Mill etc. since last several years.

10. It is submitted that the Workmen were issued Gate Pass, their EPF were deducted from the Account of BSL. It is submitted that the Workmen had examined nine (09) witnesses in support of their case and they have supported the case of the Workmen. It is 5 submitted that the several documents were marked as W-1 to W-32 respectively and all the documents support the case of the Workmen. It is submitted that the Workmen were working for last 20-25 years continuously even as per the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Labour Advisory Board.

11. It is submitted that the Management had got examined four (04) witnesses in support of its case as MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 namely Sri Prabhakar Kumar, Sri Subhash Chandra Jha, Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and Sri Jagdish Choudahry. However, their evidence has been rejected by the learned Tribunal and Award has been passed in favour of the Workmen. It is submitted that the Workmen are discharging permanent nature of job and the company is almost run by the said company. It is submitted that the document marked as Exhibit-M-1 and Exhibit-M-2 series are not reliable and have been filed only to defeat the claim of the Respondent No.1-Workmen.

12. It is submitted that the Exhibit-20 shows that the Workmen were doing job of M/s Pramod Enterprises who is the Contractor and who had issued Gate Pass to the Workmen. It is submitted that the Exhibit-W-21 reveals that 15 Workmen were engaged for 20 days. It is submitted that Exhibit-W-3 is temporary Gate Pass of 24 workers issued by BSL, SAIL, Bokaro. It is submitted that Exhibit- W-21 to W-21/1 are also the Gate Passes in favour of some of the Workmen. It is submitted that Exhibit-W-32 reveals that contract wage Workmen were paid by BSL and Ad hoc Pay, Special Pay, Special Allowance, Cycle Allowance and HRA were also paid.

13. Apart this argument, learned counsel Respondent No.1-Workmen has also relied upon the judgments as follows:- (i) (1994) 5 SCC 304 (para-9) 6 (ii) (2001) 7 SCC 1 (para 78 and 79) (iii) (1985) 4 SCC 201 (iv) [2015 (144) FLR 597 (SC) (v) (2015) 12 SCC 775 (para 20) (vi) (2015) 6 SCC 494 (para 26, 27 and 31)

14. It is submitted that the judgment passed in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) JBCJ 425 SC is not applicable. It is submitted that the judgments cited in the case of petitioner are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed and the petitioner-company may be directed to implement the Award forthwith.

15. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

16. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that list of 369 workmen was not enclosed with the memorandum of reference dated 04.11.2011 and the learned Labour Court had decided the issue against the petitioner-Management in absence of such list.

17. However, from perusal of the record of the C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad, it reveals that the list of 369 workmen was sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter dated 10.02.2012 by which the list of contract workers of different sections and department working under Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro have been enclosed and which was also received in the record of the learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad received on 29.02.2012. Even this plea was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) on 20.09.2023 and the Co-ordinate Bench had 7 directed that Union of India be impleaded as Respondent No.2 and the Respondent was directed to file counter affidavit enclosing the list of workmen enclosed with the said notification of reference dated 04.11.2011.

18. It further transpires that no interim order was passed by the earlier Co-ordinate Bench on 31.07.2019, 25.11.2021 (Hon‟ble Justice Kailash Prasad Deo as then His Lordship was), 20.09.2022,

21.10.2022, 29.11.2022 and 07.12.2022 (Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar). However, on 20.09.2023 learned counsel for the petitioner had mislead the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) by submitting that interim order was passed earlier and as such the Co-ordinate Bench had observed that earlier granted interim order shall continue till the next date of listing of this case vide dated 20.09.2023 and 23.01.2024 respectively.

19. Thereafter the matter was placed before another Co-ordinate Bench (Hon‟ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) on

18.06.2024 and interim order was continued till 23.07.2024 however, on 18.06.2024 the Co-ordinate Bench had rejected I.A. No.99 of 2021 filed by another 54 concerned workmen by observing that the Court is not inclined to allow this I.A. No.99 of 2021 filed on behalf of the individual workmen. It was also observed that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen (proposed interveners) may assist the Court at the time of final disposal of the present case along with the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of India.

20. Even the Union of India had taken time in the instant case for filing counter affidavit, however, the Co-ordinate Bench had ordered that interim order granted will continue till 23.07.2024. 8 Thereafter the arguments were heard on 23.07.2024 and concluded on 25.07.2024 before this Court.

21. Thereafter the matter was placed before this Court on

09.05.2025 for clarification on the point of list of workmen but none had appeared on that day. Thereafter the matter was although reserved but again it was placed on 14.10.2025 for clarification of list of workmen. Thereafter on the request of both the side the matter was adjourned on 15.10.2025 and it was clarified that list was already submitted before the learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad on 29.02.2012 and for which even the learned counsel respondent workmen had filed counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit dated 16.10.2023 by enclosing the list of workmen and which reveals that the Central Government had sent list of 369 Workmen along with the Reference.

22. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 2 (j), 2 (ra), 2 (s) and Sections 25-A, 25-B, 25-D, 25-E, 25-F, 25-J of Industrial Disputes Act read as follows:- “2[(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen]; 2[(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule; 2[(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any technical, operational, manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- 9 (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or (iii) who is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] 25-A. Application of sections 25-C to 25-E-(1) Sections 25-C to 25-E inclusive [shall not apply to industrial establishments to which Chapter V-B applies, or-] (a) to industrial establishments in which less than fifty workmen on an average per working day have been employed in the preceding calendar month; or (b) to industrial establishments which are of a seasonal character in which work is performed only intermittently. (2) If a question arises whether an industrial establishment is of seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittently the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. 25-B. Definition of continuous service. For the purposes of this Chapter,- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- 10 (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. 25-D. Duty of an employer to maintain muster- rolls of workmen.-Notwithstanding that workmen in any industrial establishment have been laid-off, it shall be the duty of every employer to maintain for the purposes of this Chapter a muster-roll, and to provide for the making of entries therein by workmen who may present themselves for work at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours. 25-E. Workmen not entitled to compensation in certain cases.-No compensation shall be paid to a workman who has been laid-off- (i) if he refuses to accept any alternative employment in the same establishment from which he has been laid-off, or in any other establishment belonging to the same employer situate in the same town or village or situate within a radius of five miles from the establishment to which he belongs, if, in the opinion of the employer, such alternative employment does not call for any special skill or previous experience and can be done by the workman, provided that the wages which would normally have been paid to the workman are offered for the alternative employment also; (ii) if he does not present himself for work at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours at least once a day; (iii) if such laying-off is due to a strike or slowing down of production on the part of workmen in another part of the establishment. 25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. -No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one 11 year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- in writing (a) the workman has been given one month's indicating notice retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: reasons (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government for such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.] 25-J. Effect of laws inconsistent with this Chapter. -(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law (including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946)]: [Provided that where under the provisions of any other Act or rules, orders or notifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise, a workman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the workman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.] (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State insofar as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen insofar as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

23. Clause-10 of the Fifth Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:- 12 “The Fifth Schedule, Unfair Labour Practices ……………….. Clause-10- To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”

24. It transpires that the term of the reference is as follows:- SCHEDULE “Whether the contract workers as per list enclosed should be regularized phase wise by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled and (2) whether the demand of contract workers that till they are regularized they should received equal wages and facilities as available to the regular employee of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled?”

25. It transpires from the Lower Court Record that the petitioner- Management in support of its case has got examined seven (07) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) MW-1 is Prabhakar Kumar, (ii) MW-2 is Subhash Chandra Jha, (iii) MW-3 is Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and (iv) MW-4 is Jagdish Choudhary (v) MW-5 is Prahlad Prasad Singh (vi) MW-6 is Lalit Mohan Prasad Sinha and (vii) MW-7 is Pramod Kumar Mishra.

26. It further reveals from the record that the reference case was very badly conducted before the learned Tribunal i.e. C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad. None of the witnesses i.e. neither the Workmen nor the Management-BSL had proved their documents by any witnesses, rather the documents have been marked as W-1 to W-32 series on

13.01.2015 on the basis of petitions filed by them on 05.09.2014.

27. Thus, neither in the evidence of W.W-1 and W.W-2 respectively nor in the evidence of M.W-1, M.W-2 and MW-7 13 respectively documents have been proved by the Management and they have not stated about any documents. Even during argument before this Court, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner-BSL, Bokaro nor the learned counsel for the Respondent-Workman nor the learned counsel for the Union of India pressed any documents before this Court during the argument and they have argued merely by citing some judgments in casual manner. They had not taken any pain even during their respectful submission to place the evidence of any witnesses or documents in question before this Court.

28. Exhibit-M-1 series are the job work order (faint). All dated

13.09.2010 showing validity from 13.09.2010 till 12.05.2011,

13.05.2011 issued in the name of vendor “Vaskar Constructions” Bokaro and the name and address of principal employer as G.M. Hot Strip Mill, B.S.P, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant along with form of register of wages-Muster Role as well as daily attendance unit work containing the name of workmen. From page 1 to 20 are the record of learned C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad.

29. Exhibit-M-2 series-From page-21 to 37 contain the name of another Contractor i.e. Singheshwar Construction for the period

17.06.2013 to 16.06.2014 and 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2014 containing the name of some of workmen in material handling underground and the name and address of Principal Employer is shown as D.G.M Stores (page 25-32). Page 33 to 35 is the licence dated 24.10.2013 issued by Licensing Officer in the name of M/s Singheshwar Construction and page 36 and 37 show the list of approx 31 workmen and 31 workmen respectively. 14

30. It transpires that the Respondent No.1-Workmen in support of their case has got examined two (02) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) WW-1 is Ram Lakhan Choudhary and (ii) WW-2 is Pratap Narayan Pandey.

31. It transpires that the Respondent No.1-Workmen in support of their case, got proved the following documents, which are as follows:- (i) W-1 to W-32 series are list of documents of some of the workmen which contain applications for their admission to Provident Fund. It also contains list of contractors for different works:- (i) Cleaning job of Slabing Mill, (ii) Traffic Department, Loco Shed, (iii) Hot Strip Mill and (iv) Coke Oven Battery Top. (ii) It also contains photo copies of job allotment details, photo copies of note sheet showing deployment, photo copy of work order dated 11.12.2012 and 28.06.2013, photo copy of note sheets showing contract jobs done by Category-A contract workers of continuous nature (page 38 onwards), photo copies of P.F statements and wage slips of other Category-A contract workers (page 47 onwards), letters, comments and documentation etc. of appropriate government with regard issuance of temporary gate pass to M/s Ranjan Engineering company on

21.04.2009, 22.04.2009, nomination of GPF nominee, school admission, wage slip of contractor and workmen issued in Form-XIX (page 136 to 171 and also from page 172 to 184). 15 (iii) Page 185 to 200 are the correspondences between Regional Labour Commissioner, Central Dhanbad to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar; Factory inspector to Executive Contractor, various difficulties faced by workmen of contract labourers i.e. Respondent Union and some settlement between the Government of Jharkhand and the Union of workmen-Respondent and also the petitioner-Management. It has been mainly complained that workmen are being allowed to work for certain period and their continuous services are being broken so that they may not take advantage of continuous working and they are laying them to break in their continuous services. However, the authorities had opined that Category-A contract labourers may not be removed/laid off.

32. Thereafter the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned Award on the following direction, which is as follows:- In is also taken by is generating the production. “39. Facts are not disputed but it is said that the contractor workers were engaged by them and they are paying the wages to them through intermediaries but production is done by the concerned workmen for management and profits management which is proved. All listed work is permanent nature of job and company is running and factory the workmen were rendering circumstances when permanent nature of work they are to be benefited at par with regular employee. It is directed as under: The workmen who have rendering service and it (i) appears that their EPF has been deducted, their EPF contribution and their accumulation be given to them or their legal representative immediately if any (ii) Each workmen be given lump-sum Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of their regularization who are already died or attained age of superannuation, either to their LR or the retired workmen as the case may be for the ends of justice. 16 (iii) Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the contract workers as per list enclosed be regularized from date of reference phase wise by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in any department and the departments in which they are working within 30 days from the publication of the award, if the award is not implemented within 30 days, the management to give the workmen back wages from the date of publication of award.”

33. It appears from the record that during pendency of the Reference Case before the learned Tribunal some of the workmen have died and they are represented through representatives are pursuing this case also.

34. It further transpires that although the reference was received in the learned C.G.I.T, Dhanbad on 28.11.2011 with the work of the Workmen. However, the list of Workmen was also received before the learned C.G.I.T, Dhanbad on 29.02.2012 containing the name of 369 Workman. Thus, before filing of Written Statement before the learned C.G.I.T, Dhanbad the list of Workmen was already available.

35. It further transpires that the petitioner company has exploited all the Workmen by using unfair trade practices. The Workmen were exploited by taking work from them in cleaning and hazardous work which is also apparent from the statement of the Management witness and the witnesses of the Workmen. There is no rebuttal on the part of the Management that no hazardous work was being taken.

36. It is evident from order sheet dated 06.11.2015 that the Management had not produced the original papers of documents despite direction by the learned Tribunal on 06.11.2015 and

11.02.2016 and hence documents marked as M.W-1 series and M.W-4 series during their respective cross-examination were marked which were produced on behalf of the workmen. Thus, the 17 Management had deliberately suppressed the original documents of M.W-1 series and M.W-4 series respectively in order to deny the claim of the Workmen-Union.

37. It appears from the records received from the learned C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad that order of reference was received on

28.11.2011 before the Presiding Officer and on 29.12.2011 the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad send a letter to Ministry of Labour for sending the list of workmen.

38. It further reveals that vide letter dated 29.02.2012 a letter containing list of 370 workmen along with forwarding letter received by the learned C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no list was received before the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad.

39. It further reveals from the order sheet that even the contractors of the workmen were examined before the learned Tribunal as M.W-3, M.W-4 and M.W-7 namely Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari, Jagdish Choudhary and Pramod Kumar Mishra respectively. However, during their examination in-chief, which were filed on their affidavits, they have taken the plea that after taking contract from the B.S.L, Bokaro or after accepting the tender, the Management had issued job/work order and they had employed some workmen for executing particular works, but after completion of job contract, the workmen were terminated. They have also stated that contract workmen cannot demand at par with the regular employee. However, they admitted that they used to employee the workmen. Even M.W-3 during evidence admitted that he used to appoint the workmen for execution of job contract and he had 18 appointed new or old workmen which were available according to prevailing situation and job.

40. It transpires that M.W-3 during cross-examination admitted that he was doing job contract since the year 1993 in Bokaro Steel Plant and presently he was doing contract work Category-A in Cold Rolling Mill and his workmen were cleaning the machines at the plant also looking after that. However, he had employed 25 workmen in C.R.M since last 11 months. He also admitted that the job which he was conducting is permanent and the workmen are temporary. Thus, the evidence of M.W-3 supports the case of the workmen in the Management.

41. So far as written statement of the workmen-Union is concerned, it reveals that they have taken the plea that in nine major departments of B.S.L, the contract workers are working since last several years and they have been deprived of equal pay for equal work and even minimum wages in violation of law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court. On the basis of demand made by the Union, the conciliation was held in between the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant and representation of Jharkhand Krantikari Majdoor Union i.e. the respondent. However, the conciliation failed and Deputy Union Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, B.S.L on

24.10.2007 send failure report to Government of India. Thereafter vide letter dated 04.11.2011 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour referred the dispute for adjudication. They have taken the plea that Jharkhand State Advisory Board have constituted a committee and they have also submitted a report in detail regarding the works done by the contract labourers in various units of Bokaro Steel Plant. 19

42. So far as written statement of Management-B.S.L-petitioner is concerned, they have refuted the claim of the workmen. The Management has stated that they had never appointed the concerned workmen whose names are appearing in the Annexure-2 reference and they never engaged the said workmen and they are not aware about the concerned workmen. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned persons and the Management and the Management never paid any wages to any workmen. They are not aware whether these concerned persons ever worked under the Management. There is no vacancy for regularization of any person and there is no question of grant of equal pay for equal work to any person and only a proper workman can claim this. They have also taken the plea that equal work for equal pay cannot be allocated by the Tribunal and it has to be sought before the appropriate authority. The Union has not disclosed the name of any alleged contractor under which the alleged persons have been working. Even the details of alleged person in the Annexure-2 reference is highly speculative and fictitious and hence there is no merit in this reference.

43. So far as oral evidence is concerned, W.W-1 is Ram Lakhan Choudhary who stated during his evidence, filed on an affidavit that he had started working in SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant firstly under the contractor PKP construction as U.S.W on 01.05.1989 and his work place was Coke Oven Top and the contractor was given work for Compensator and Gland Packing for the period

01.05.1989 to 01.05.1992. Several contractors have changed since

01.05.1992 but he is still working there. He also asserted that even the regular workmen are also working and doing the same work he is doing since 1989. The permanent employee of Management who 20 does this work, his post is called Khalasi and the work has to be done at Coke Oven Top at 1200 Degree Cente Grade which comes under production. The work of Compensator and Goose Weck is to stop the leakage of gas from Coke Oven otherwise the poisonous gas will leak to environment due to which huge loss will occur. He asserted that due to his work efficiency and punctuality he was promoted as U.S.W and he was promoted as S.S.W due to his work efficiency and merit and he is still working as S.S.W in Coke Oven Battery at its Oven top. His present contractor is C.K. Thakur. His work comes under Category-A of contract labourer and this Category-A is given to workmen after completing work for 12 continuous months and nature of work is permanent. He stated that workmen have worked under the contractor Vaskar Construction. He asserted that employment/admission of contract labourer is under Category-A by the contract labourer. He also proved the deduction of G.P.F paper for few years and asserted that deduction in G.P.F is being done since 1989 continuously. However, the contractor makes payment for salary only once in a month.

44. During cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot file appointment letter issued by BSL Management in his favour. He cannot file any document of BSL Management for paying him wages.

45. Thus, the evidence of W.W-1 was filed on 26.05.2014 but he was cross-examined and discharged on 06.08.2014. It reveals that the concerned W.W-1-workan namely Ram Lakhan Choudhary was working for around 25 years in BSL Management, Bokaro and even his E.P.F deduction is being done.

46. However, when W.W-1 was confronted by the Union of India on the point of work in Coke Oven Top, he fairly admitted 21 and stated that he cannot file any document but show that he was promoted as S.S.W and he was working as Category-A workman. However, he has document to show that Management had allotted works and supervise the same. He denied the suggestion that he was not working on Coke Oven Top under the Management. Thus, from the evidence of W.W-1, it is evident that he was working since 25 years on Coke Oven Top continuously and there is not rebuttal of the evidence of W.W-1.

47. W.W-2 is Pratap Narayan Pandey, who has also filed an evidence on affidavit, stating therein that he is one of the contract labourers in the list of 370 contract labourers. He is working as Category-A contract labourers. He is working a Category-A contract labourers since 1985 and in the meantime, contractor has changed but they are working in the said department continuously and the works are being done 365 days. The contractor is mere broker in this work and he is being paid salary only one day in a month. There is a memorandum of agreement with the National Joint Committee of Ispat National Industry. He further stated that vide letter dated 3/4-11-99 Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Sri R.S. Tiwary had recommended the case of workmen for making them permanent and he has recommended for regularizing his services of contract labourers. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that BSL- petitioner had not given him any appointment letter. Even his contractor R.N. Singh had not given any letter of appointment but he was issued gate pass. He admitted that the original document filed by them is not available rather they are photo copies of the same. However, the deposition of W.W-2 was completed on

25.03.2015. 22 Thus, the evidence of W.W-2 reveals that he was working in said HRCM for around 30 years continuously although the contractors has changed several persons in the meantime.

48. So far as evidence of Management is concerned, M.W-1 is Prabhakar Kumar who was working as A.G.M (Pers.) at Bokaro Steel Plant and stated that workmen raised industrial dispute before the State Government for their regularization which was rejected in the year 2017 by the State Government. However, the workmen by concealing the above rejection order again raised industrial dispute before Central Labour Department and hence the present reference is not maintainable. The workman has not disclosed the name of contract workers who are working in Hot Strip Mill, Slab Yard, Reheating Furnace, Coke Oven. They have also not made Sanchalay Sansthan as party nor any contract was given as SSS for cleaning and sweeping any department of B.S.L. The workman has not disclosed the name of contractor on whose behest they are working. He further stated that Ram Lakhan Prasad-WW-1 and Pratap Narayan Pandey -WW-2 were never appointed by the Management to perform any permanent job from 01.05.1989 to till date. Sri C.K. Thakur was never awarded job of Coke Oven Top. The Management never designated any contract worker in different categories. The Management never allotted contractual job to Sri Ram Lakhan Choudhary or to any one and it never supervise the job of any workmen nor any concerned workmen ever reported work practice to Management. The contract workers were never engaged in permanent nature of job. The workmen had not produced the documents regarding their working. However, the Management engaged contractor in casual and temporary nature of job after following due procedure and had issued work order. 23 The Management vide petition dated 20.05.2015 has filed three items of document which may be marked as exhibits. The source of appointment, calculation are different for permanent workmen and contract workmen and hence contract workmen cannot demand pay at par with permanent workmen.

49. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he was also working in Contract Labour Cell of Personnel Department and they take care of contract workers in CLC categorization of contract workers and the category is determined by contractors not by BSL. They are paying money to contractor not to the workmen. He admitted that they are taking the work from the contract worker and paying money to the contractors. He has shown ignorance whether BSL issued notice, if Category-A Workmen will go on strike then Management will deduct their wage. He had entered into CLC in 2006 and left into 2011 and hence he is not in a position to say the actual position. He has shown ignorance whether Bharat Contractor and Mr. C.K. Thakur worked in Management or not. Thus, the evidence of M.W-1 is simply flatly denial of the case of workmen though he himself had worked in Contract Labour Cell from 2006 to 2011 and hence the evidence of M.W-1 is not reliable and rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

50. Even M.W-2 Subhash Chandra Jha stated that he is job contractor of BSL and he used to submit tender and get contract for three (03) months, six (06) months and eleven (11) months, not continuously. After completion of contract, he gave them final notice and payment and payment are left. He had appointed some worker during contract and he was paying all cheques. However, he has not categorized the workmen and he can identify his workmen. 24 During cross-examination, he admitted to be worker as contract since last 20 years. He had engaged persons in Coke Oven, Hot Strip Mill. He also admitted that the names appearing in the list under reference worked under him for eleven (11) months job can be categorized. He is still doing contract in Coke Oven Top and Hot Strip Mill. He is executing Category-A job. He chose his own workmen and engaged them and Management has no right either to control or to remove because it is prerogative. The workmen were getting minimum wage and thus, from the evidence of M.W-2, it is evident that he has supported the evidence of Management as he has recognized the names of workmen in the list of workmen and he is contractor doing contract work in Coke Oven and Hot Strip Mill.

51. M.W-3 is Rajendra Prasad Tiwari who stated that after accepting the tender, the Management used to issue job work order before allotting contract jobs. In the work order the name of jobs, duration and estimated cost etc. are written and the terms and conditions are also mentioned. It is stated that after getting job contract, he executed the same through workmen who were appointed for particular contract jobs and being the employer he always supervise their job and also took disciplinary action against them. It is stated that being the independent contract the Management never supervise the jobs of his workman or wages paid to them and nor does it terminate their services. It is stated that he filled work order, license, application to CISF for issuing gate pass, muster roll etc. and there was no permanent nature of work awarded to the workmen and after completion of work the services of the workmen were terminated. During cross-examination, he admitted of doing job contract since 1993 in Bokaro Steel Plant and at present in Cold Rolling 25 Mill. He admitted to have engaged 25 workmen in C.R.M since eleven (11) months. The job his workmen doing is of Category-A and they are doing work of cleaning the machines of the plant and also looking after that. He asserted to have power of taking action against the workmen on the ground of misconduct and his nature of job permanent but the nature of workmen is temporary. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of M.W-3, it is evident that he has supported the Management and admitted that his 25 workmen are engaged in CRM since last 11 months and he has not noticed any misconduct of the workmen.

52. M.W-4 is Jagdish Choudhary, who stated that he is a contractor and execute job contract in BSL. After taking contract, the Management gives work order. He stated that he has licence and he maintains the muster roll of the workmen engaged by him. Each contract is up to 11 months and after completion of contract, the workmen were paid and allowed to sit and usually we take old workman and it gets afresh. In cross-examination, he admitted to execute job contract in stores and the workmen engaged by him take material to Oxygen Plant, Railways etc. My workmen also do the work of material feeding i.e. to Sub-stores and some contractors does permanent job and some does temporary. He asserted that he is not deposing falsehood by the pressure of Management. He denied having knowledge of number of contractors engaged in stores.

53. M.W-5 is Prahlad Prasad Singh, who stated in his evidence that he is not aware about the other persons who are working in which department and the workman neither stated in his written statement nor in his evidence anything about the persons whose names are in the order of reference, about the date of their engagement and the name of the contractor who appointed them. It 26 is stated that he never designated any contract worker in any categories and he neither given any evidence nor produced any documents regarding work of concerned workmen. He stated that none of the persons whose names appearing in the order of reference were ever appointed by the Management or they have even received any wages from the Management. It is stated that in HRCF section no contractor has been engaged for executing permanent and continuous nature of jobs. The contract allotted to him is temporary and is of casual nature. During cross-examination, he stated that he is not looking after the contract works and it is not a fact that HRCF work was a permanent nature of work. He stated that he is not aware about the workmen and what sorts of work they are doing and he is not deposing any falsehood. Thus, M.W-5 has supported the Management case but his evidence is not convincing.

54. M.W-6 is Lalit Mohan Prasad Sinha, who has stated the same statement as given by M.W-4 during his examination in-chief filed on affidavit. Hence, the same is not repeated here. During cross-examination, he stated that he came to BSL in 2013 and he has no personal knowledge regarding the case. Thus, the evidence of M.W-6 is not maintainable as he has joined BSL in 2013.

55. M.W-7 is Pramod Kumar Mishra, has stated the same fact as has been stated by M.W-4 and MW-6 during their examination in- chief. During cross-examination, he admitted to have doing contract work under BSL from 1990-91. He stated to have taken disciplinary action against certain workman but cannot name them or file any documents relating to that. He denied to have any 27 knowledge about the execution of work by the concerned workmen and their department. Thus, the evidence of M.W-7 is completely under the influence of Management and hence not reliable.

56. It reveals that the workmen were working in the following places of Petitioner-BSL:- (i) Coke Oven Plant, (ii) Thermal Power Plant, (iii) Hot Strip Mill, (iv) Slabing Mill, (v) CRM Plant, (vi) HRCF Plant, (vii) Bokaro General Hospital, (viii) Central Storage.

57. Even the Coke Oven Plant, there are ten (10) different units/wings which is evident from the letter No.696 dated

10.10.2003 issued by Narottam Prasad then Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bokaro Thermal to the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi which is enclosed at page 192 to 200 of Lower Court Records of Part-II received from learned C.G.I.T, Dhanbad, as follows:- (i) Door repairing through M/s H.N. Construction:- For maintaining the batteries continuously where 34 contract labourers were working since 1989. However, after 1998 the workers are being laid off but earlier they were not being laid off. (ii) Campan Center, Gland Packing:- In which regular employees were working earlier but 28 thereafter seven (07) contractors are working (name of contractor not disclosed) since 1989. (iii) T.T Fitting:- Eleven (11) contract workers are working since 1981 through contractor M/s G.P Construction. (iv) Stand Pipe Fitting through G.P. Construction:- Eight (08) Category-A contract workers are working through their contractor since 1984. Earlier the labourers were given work for the whole year but from the year 1998 the labourers are laid off for three months. (v) Platform Cleaning:- Earlier 63 Category-A contract labourers were doing work by M/s Vaskar Construciton but presently 53 Category-A workers are doing work from 1990-91 continuously and work is being done for the whole year. But due to non-cleaning of platform the production is being affected. (vi) Tea Bolt (name of contractor not disclosed- Door regulation by several workers (number is faint) being done the year 1998 continuously but after 1998 they are being laid off for one months. The work also relates to production. (vii) Coke Sorting and Cleaning:- Approx 155 workers are working continuously through the contractor M/s Vaishali Construction and M/s Nirad Construction. (ix) Slang Dump (name of contractors not disclosed by Management):- Hundred (100) 29 Category-A workers are working for last several years and even after change of contractor, the workmen remained the same and the work of nature is permanent and doing continuous production in the plant. (x) Coke Handling:- Earlier 31 Category-A workers were working (list unavailable). (xi) Sulphate Plant:- 15 category-A workers are working for last several years through private contractor Chandu Singh.

58. Page 201 to 205 sent by Deputy Labour Commissioner to Labour Secretary-cum-Chairman, Nepal House, Jharkhand, Dhanbad dated 19.04.2007 informing them about working of contract labourers in:- (i) Hot Strip Mill (164 contract labourers/employee through different contractors and working for more than 10 years. (ii) Coke Oven:- 640 contract workers were working for more than 10 years. (iii) Cold Rolling Mill- 195 contract labourers were working for last several years but number of years not disclosed. (iv) Traffic Department- 26 contract workers are working for more than 15 years and the work is of continuous nature. (v) Steel Melting Shop:- 9 contract workers are working since 1984 and the nature of work is very special category and continuous work. (vi) HRCF Plant- 165 contract labourers are working and the work is of continuous nature. 30 However, number of years have not been disclosed in the report. (vii) Central Store Department:- There are 39 stores inside Bokaro Steel Plant in which 400 contract labourers are working for more than 10 years and work is of continuous nature and related to production of the factory. (viii) Slabing Mill:- 165 contract labourers are working for more than 20 years and the workers are very important and very essential production. (ix) Cleaning Work-95 workers are involved in Bokaro General Hospital for cleaning human wastes in B.G.H where 50 workers were deployed for cleaning of Bokaro Steel Plant and 32 labourers are deployed for cleaning work of various sectors and which are useful for the work of working labourers in the plant and they are working continuously since 1992 (i.e. for around 15 years).

59. Page 206 to 209 are the schemes floated by SAIL, Durgapur Steel Plant for regularizing the workmen of different units of Durgapur Steel Plant by which the scheme of voluntary separation scheme was implemented and even tripartite settlement was executed between the Management and the Workmen. Even the nomination paper for EPF, Gate Pass of various workmen, deduction of Provident Fund from the wages of workmen (page 228 to 232), Wages Cards, Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit- W-27) (page 247 to 271) issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, work orders, tender notice, wage slips in Form-XIX 31 (from page 280 to 324), deduction of provident fund form some of the workmen (page-326 to 346).

60. The above documents clearly show that not only the workmen have been represented by the Respondent-Workmen but several workers who were/are working in different units of BSL continuously for more than 15-20 years. Although they are contract labourers but they are performing their duties along with regular employees of BSL. The nature of work clearly show that hazardous work are being taken from them and which is complete violation of Clause-10 of Unfair Labour Practice of Vth Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act.

61. Thus, this Court finds that learned C.G.I.T, Dhanbad committed no illegality by allowing the reference in favour of Respondent-Workmen.

62. It is a settled law that the Court need not interfere into the Award passed by the learned Tribunal or by the learned Labour Court below if it is demonstrably not illegal, without jurisdiction and based on no evidence.

63. It is well settled that the Writ Court will not interfere in the Award passed by the learned Tribunal if there is no illegality, perversity and impropriety in the impugned Award.

64. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477 at Paragraph no.7 as follows:- “Para 7:-The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can 32 similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material inadmissible evidence, or had erroneously admitted evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168.”

65. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, at Paragraph no.21 as follows:- 33 “Para 21:-With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.”

66. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 at Paragraph nos.12 and 13 as follows:- “Para 12:- Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra) Para 13:- In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior 34 courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.”

67. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Workmen were employed by the Contractor and Workmen were not employed by the B.S.L., but from perusal of the Lower Court Records, it is evident that these Workmen were never employed by the Contractor from time to time, ever, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also failed to state the name of any such Contractor (s), who had/have engaged and employed these Workmen.

68. Even the learned Counsel did not argue on the point of list of Workmen dated 10.02.2012 sent by Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment to learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad. Further, the Management has not denied the documents marked as W-1 to W-32 series by leading any cogent evidence.

69. So far as the judgment passed in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Versus R.J. Pathan and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 394, at Para 10 and 11, is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case because in the above case, concerned respondents were appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months on a fixed salary and on a particular Project, namely “Post Earthquake Re-Development Programme” of the Government of Gujarat in the year 2004 to the post of Drivers. However, on closure of the project the State Government, instead of terminating their services, took a decision to place them in the services of Indian Red Cross Society. Instead of joining the duties, the Respondents approached the High Court by filing the writ petition for regularization of their services and absorption in Government Service. Although, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, however, the Hon‟ble 35 Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court had allowed the Letters Patent appeal filed by respondents being L.P.A. No. 2082 of 2011 and thereafter, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of the Hon‟ble Division Bench, distinguishing it in Para 14 with the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 08 SCC 238, which is a subsequent decision of Uma Devi, on the ground that it was the case of irregularly appointed employees and it was a case with respect to the employees working with the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15.11.2000 and hence, no one could have completed 10 years of service in the State of Jharkhand on the cut off date of

10.04.2006, hence the above judgment is not applicable because in the present case the workmen were working in the B.S.L since the year 1982, 1984 and onwards and hence, the case of Uma Devi (Supra) is also not applicable in this case. It has been further observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that even otherwise, it is to be noted that though not required, the State, instead of putting an end to the services of the respondents, graciously placed the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society. No duty was cast upon the State to transfer them to another establishment in a case where it is found that the employees are appointed in a temporary unit and on a temporary contractual basis and on a fixed term salary and on closure of the temporary unit their services are not required. However, the State Government was gracious enough to place the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society, which the respondents did not accept. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further held that no such order of absorption and/or regularization even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

70. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in (Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors.), 36 reported in (2019) 13 SCC 82 at Paragraph nos.21 and 24 as follows:- “Para-21:- We, now come to some of the judgments cited by Shri Sudhir Chandra and Ms Asha Jain. In Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , it was held that the well- recognised tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees are as follows: (SCC p. 638, para 10) “10. It is now well settled that if the industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the principal employer and the contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employee and that there was in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the workman is the direct employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognised tests to find out whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor; and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the Industrial Court answered both questions in the affirmative and as a consequence held that the first respondent is a direct employee of the appellant.” Para-24:- We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai reiterated Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as follows: (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65) “65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia: (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service; and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , International Airport Authority of India case [International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] .”

71. So far as judgment reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 (Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food 37 Corporation of India and Another) is concerned, this Court is of the view that it supports the case of the workmen instead of Management. In the above mentioned case the first workman Hari Nandan was in service from 01.06.1980 but he was disengaged from 01.03.1983 i.e. less than three (03) years whereas second workman Gobind Kumar Choudhary was engaged on daily wages as „casual typist‟ on Class-III post on 05.09.1986 and he worked till 15.09.1990 when his name was struck off. Although being raised industrial disputes separately the learned C.G.I.T allowed the reference in favour of both the workman vide Award dated 12.12.1996 and Award dated 18.12.1996 respectively and it was challenged by the Management before Jharkhand High Court and the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the Management. However, the Management preferred L.P.A which was allowed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court by passing order in favour of the Management which was challenged by both the workmen before Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, one circular dated 06.05.1987 was floated by the Management side by which many similarly situated placed workmen had been regulalrised. The workmen had raised contention that those who had rendered 240 days service were regularized as per the provisions in that scheme/circular dated 06.05.1987. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had dismissed the case of the first workman Hari Nandan on the ground that on the date of promulgation of circular dated 06.05.1987 the first appellant Hari Nandan was not in service whereas second workman Gobind Kumar Choudhary was in job. However, in the instant case, this Court finds that the workman were in employment of the Petitioner-Management around 1985 till the date of institution of reference case. Thus, this Court finds that the judgment reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 supports the case of the workmen-respondent instead of petitioner-Management. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had also referred 38 the case of State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and passed the order in favour of one of the workman Gobind Kumar Choudhary.

72. So far as judgment reported in (2019) 13 SCC 82 (Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors.) is concerned, the same is on different context and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The learned Labour Court has passed the Award in the light of order dated 24.04.1990 issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the BHEL was exempted from the said notification vide notification dated 24.04.1990. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable in this case.

73. So far as judgment reported in (2021) 18 SCC 707 (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Krishan Gopal and Ors.) is concerned, the same is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case because in the above case the question for entitlement of regularization was referred to Larger Bench by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

74. Apart from this, it is evident that the judgment in the case of State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case because the Respondent-Workmen were working in the Petitioner-Company since the year 1982 and they have completed more than approximately 24 years of service on the date of passing of judgment in State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi and thus, the judgment of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.

75. It is evident that these Workmen were continuously working for more than 25 years and even on the day of passing of Award dated

26.12.2017 in question and some of the Workmen were working for more than 25 to 30 years. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of long continuation of service, they should be regularized. 39

76. It is held in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 771, Para 7 to 11 as follows:- decision (3) [State intent of to prevent irregular or their head. This “Para-7:- The purpose and the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore illegal twofold, namely, appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after in Umadevi Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of is precisely Damocles over what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (L&S) 753] (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid.” Para 8 -: If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.” Para-9:- The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of : 2006 SCC then no 40 Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.” “Para 10:- Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” Para11:-The impugned judgment and order [Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.”

77. It is held in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., reported in the case of (2018) 13 SCC 432 at para 7 to 10 as follows: “ Para 7:-When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily- wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was by Umadevi Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully make envisaged (3) [State 41 (3) [State that Umadevi observation Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] , from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be back door filled by regular entry and every post should be employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .” terms, whereas Umadevi in Umadevi (3) [State spirit the decision Para 9:- The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three in Umadevi 42 years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10- 2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today.” Para10:- Impugned judgment and order [Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16492] and also order terminating the services are hereby quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending application, stands disposed of.”

78. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Banerjee Versus State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 93 at Paragraph nos.24, 25, 27, 28, 29 as follows:- “Para-24:- The respondent has relied on Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] judgment to contend that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily-wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. The relevant portion of the factual position in Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is being reproduced as hereunder : (SCC pp. 19-20, para 8) “8. … the respondents therein who were temporarily engaged on daily-wages the Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka claim that they worked in the Department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence 43 These to all respondents issued on 3-7-1984. Though they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the Department, entitled the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-1986 and in the teeth of orders not to make such appointments Director of Commercial Taxes recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not accede recommendation. thereupon approached the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim finding that they had not made out a right either to get wages equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation. Thus, the applications filed were dismissed. The respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High Court without really coming to grips with the question falling for decision in the light of the findings of the Administrative Tribunal and the decisions of this Court, proceeded to order that they are entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect they were respectively appointed. It may be noted that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 1-7-1984, a situation covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka [Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274] and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily-wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularisation in their posts.” Para-25:- However, in the present case, as we have observed, the appellant was appointed as a casual worker in 1991. While the services of other co-employees were regularised, that of the appellant and some others was left out. The High Court in its order dated 3-9-2010 passed in from which the dates 44 rendered in Umadevi [State (hereinafter referred Writ Petition No. 17892 of 2010 has also recorded the respondents' submissions that resolutions pertaining to the appellant's absorption are already in place and the same have been sent for necessary approval. Therefore, the judgment Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Para-27:- The facts of U.P. SEB [U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder : (SCC pp. 95-96 & 99, paras 3-9 & 19) “3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily-wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board to as “the Electricity Board”). It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3-4-1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3-4-1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, the daily-wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. 4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board. 5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28-11-1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily-wage basis from before 4-5-1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose. 6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28-11-1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily-wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4-5-1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily- wage basis. it was mentioned 45

7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9- 1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily-wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. 8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. 9. The writ petitioners who were daily-wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4-5-1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28-11-1996. ***

19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face.” Para-28:- The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit. Para-29:- Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., MAT No. 611 of 2018, order dated 10-12-2019 (Cal)] of the High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5401] in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017. The appellant herein, in our considered opinion, is entitled to receive back wages and benefits from 1991, along with an interest of 10%. ”

79. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India and Others and another analogous case 46 reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 at Paragraph nos.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 as follows:- “Para-22:- The temporary pervasive misuse employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices for exploiting workers and have been criticized undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. Para 23:- The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment ILO's Multinational Enterprises of workers. The Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation long-term unemployment. exacerbate independent contractors, Para 24:- The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This 47 judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. forms of exploitation. While Para 25:- It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: institution are often • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, 48 even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. Para 26:- While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. in cases where functioning, in providing Para 27:- In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by fair and stable employment. example Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the contravenes organization's international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee employment practices, morale. By government the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. institutions can reduce ensuring 49 Para 28: In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the to any pecuniary appellants shall not be entitled benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits.

80. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Versus Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 270 at Paragraph nos.18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 as follows:- “Para-18:- Analysis and findings: Having heard the parties in detail, we are of the opinion that the present appeals can be disposed of for the following reasons. Para-19:- At the outset, the appellant objected to the Tribunal entertaining the industrial dispute passing of the award on the ground that a settlement under S. 18(1) read with S. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on all the parties under S. 19(2) of the Act. This is the substantive part of the submission on behalf of the appellant. The facts of this case, as they unfold, leading to the arrival of the settlement, followed by the reference to the Industrial Tribunal, and then the award, are necessary for our consideration. Para-20:- At the first place, all the 32 workmen commenced their work through the contractor from 1984 and continued till 1994. In 1994, the respondent-union espoused the cause of all the 32 workers and the Asst. Labour Commissioner took up the entire cause. This culminated in the settlement dated 05.04.1997, relied upon by the appellant. Para-27:- We are also not impressed with the artificial distinction which the appellant sought to bring about between the 19 workers who were regularized and the 13 50 workers who were left out. The evidence on record discloses that, of the total 32 workmen, 19 workers worked in the bunker, 6 worked in the Coal Handling Plant, and 7 worked on the railway siding. However, of the 19 workers who were regularized, 16 worked in the bunker, and 3 worked in the Coal Handling Plant. However, 3 workers from the same bunker, 3 workers from the same Coal Handling Plant and again 7 workers from the same tabulated railway siding were not regularized. A representation of the above description is as follows: Site of work No. of workers who executed Bunker 19 Coal Handling Plant 6 Railway Siding 7 Total: 32 No. of workers who were regulariz 16 3 - 19 No. of workers not regularized 3 3 7 13 Para-28:- The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting hereinabove are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant. the appeals. What we have referred Para-29:- This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages. Para-30:- With respect to payment of backwages, we are of the opinion that the workmen will be entitled to the Industrial Tribunal. backwages as observed by However, taking into account, the long-drawn litigation 51 affecting the workmen as well as the appellant in equal measure and taking into account the public interest, we confine the backwages to be calculated from the decision of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2002. This is the only modification in the order of the Tribunal, and as was affirmed by the judgment of the High Court. Para 31:- For the reasons stated above, the appeals arising out of the final judgment and order of the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2002/2002 and order in Review Petition No. 77/2017 are dismissed with the direction that the concerned workmen shall be entitled to backwages with effect from 23.05.2002. There shall be no order as to costs.”

81. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to make out the case in favour of the Petitioner-B.S.L.

82. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also directed for regularization of services of the Workmen, who had worked for one decade or Two decades and has held that they are entitled to be regularized. Even the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that the principles of natural justice demand that the workmen cannot be denied the benefits of regularization of their services when similarly placed persons have been granted the said benefit.

83. Even in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), it has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the workers/employees who are working for more than 10 years or above they may be considered for regularization.

84. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management has strenuously relied upon the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because in the above case, the Workmen are working since 1980s and 1990s and have completed more than one to two decades in service and 52 most of them completed 20 years and hence the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

85. It further transpires that the Management has taken the plea that the Workmen have not disclosed the name of contractors under whom they have worked.

86. This Court finds that this is a lame excuse on behalf of the Management of BSL (i.e. the petitioner) who had awarded contracts to the contractors under whom the Workmen are, and the plea that the Workmen have not disclosed the name of the contractor is fallacious. The stand of the Management clearly shows that they had concealed the relevant name of the contractors not only from the Tribunal i.e. CGIT, Dhanbad but also from this Court.

87. It further reveals from the list of Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India to the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad that the Workmen employed in the BSL since the year 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991 and 1992 respectively and all the details that the Workmen working in Hot Strip Mills at Serial No.7, 9 and 11 were/are working since the year 1984 whereas the Workmen mentioned at Serial No.1, 3, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 were/are 1986 whereas the Workmen at Serial No.13 is working since 1978 and the Workmen mentioned at Serial No.5 since the year 1990 whereas the Workmen at Serial No.23 to 27 are working since 1988. The list of each and every Workmen with the date of respective employment has also been given and which has been sent also by the Ministry of Labour and Employment to the Tribunal i.e. Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad on 10.02.2012. Similarly, Workmen whose names are shown to Coke Oven (Door Repair), BSL at Serial No.1 to 17 have been working since 53 the year 1989 whereas the Workmen at Serial No.18 was working since 1984. Even some of the workmen of Coke Oven Repairing (Tire Rod) mentioned at Serial No.1 to 5 are shown to be working since the year 1985. Thus, the list completely shows that most of the Workmen are working for more than 20 years and some of the Workmen are working for more than 30 years.

88. This Court further finds that no illegality has been committed learned Tribunal while issuing direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh) to each Workmen in lieu of their regularization who had died or attained the age of superannuation. It is highly surprising that the Management has not complied with the direction of the Tribunal till date although there is no stay order in favour of the Management and the Management was bound to comply with the said direction forthwith for the welfare of the Workmen and this is also one of the instances which clearly depicts that the Management of the BSL has adopted unfair labour practices against the Workmen by not complying the direction issued by the learned Tribunal i.e. CGIT, Dhanbad as far back as on 26.12.2017 (communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated

21.02.2018).

89. The Management is directed to comply with the said direction forthwith, failing which, it may be liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.

90. It further transpires from Exhibit-20 that the Workmen were doing job under the contractors-M/s Pramod Enterprises and even the Gate Passes in the respective name of Workmen have been marked as Exhibit-W-21 reveal that the fifteen (15) Workmen were engaged for twenty (20) days. 54

91. It is further evident from the Exhibit-32 that the Workmen were paid wages even by the B.S.L and Ad hoc Pay, Special Pay, Special Allowances, Cycle Allowances and H.R.A were also paid.

92. It further transpires from Exhibit-M-1 series filed by the Management dated 13.09.2010 for the period 13.09.2010 till

12.05.2011, it is evident that the Workmen-Respondent were doing work under the contractor-Vaskar Constructions.

93. It is further evident from Exhibit-M-2 series filed by the Management that the Workmen were employed by the Contractor Singheshwar Construction the period 17.06.2013

16.06.2014, 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2014 and 01.02.2014

28.02.2014 which shows the name of Principal Employer D.G.M Store.

94. It is further evident from the evidence of W.W-2- Pratap Narayan Pandey stated that he had worked under the Contractor- R.N. Singh.

95. In the present case also the workmen have worked for a long time and hence, the learned Tribunal has answered the Reference rightly and correctly and not to provide pay scale equivalent to permanent labourer of establishment by the Management of B.S.L. are not justified. They are entitled to be regularised in permanent cadre of the lowest category of employees under B.S.L with effect from 26.12.2017, the date of reference. They are also entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the permanent workmen of the lowest grade with effect from the date of their respective work as per list sent by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter dated 10.02.2012 to then Presiding Officer, Sri Hari Mangal Singh, C.G.I.T-I, Dhanbad and which has also been enclosed as Annexure-A to the counter 55 affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits.” Thus, this Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned Award dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure-3).

96. Accordingly, the Award dated 26.12.2017 passed by passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference No.50 of 2011, is upheld and the present writ petition being W.P.(L) No.1904 of 2018 is, hereby, dismissed.

97. The interim order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench and on subsequent dates 23.01.2024 and

18.06.2024 stand vacated. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Date:17.10.2025. Saket/- NAFR 56