The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.4015 OF 2019 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) **** Biju Pattnaik Biman Bandar Thika Mazdoor Sangha, AT: Plot No.219/A, Estate, Mancheswar Khordha, Bhubaneswar, represented its General Secretary, Sri Abhimanyu Mallick Industrial Dist: through -versus- 1. The Director, Airport Authority of Airport, India, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, PIN-751009, Patnaik Biju 2. The Senior Manager (Electrical), Engineering Wing, Airport Authority India, Biju Patnaik Airport, of Bhubaneswar, 3. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar … Petitioner … Opposite Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. Somnath Patnaik , Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Md. Golam Madani, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2) CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on : 30.07.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO 4015 OF 2019 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 J U D G M E N T By the Bench 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Award dated 18th December, 2017 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) in Industrial Dispute Case No.14 of 2003 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The term of reference made by the appropriate Government to learned Tribunal for adjudication was as under:- the action of “Whether the management of Airport Authority of India in relation to their Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar not to regularise the services of sixteen contract labourers as per list enclosed as well as not giving them equal pay for equal work at par with various categories of employee employed in their own establishment considering their length of service, experience and essentiality to the Organization is legal & justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?” 4. Petitioner-Biju Pattnaik Biman Bandar Thika Mazdoor Sangha (for brevity ‘the Workers’ Union’) represents the Workmen, at whose instance the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal for adjudication. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are the authorities under the Management of Airport Authority of India, Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Management’). 5. The case of the Workmen in brevity as revealed from their statement of claim is that they were engaged under different W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 Contractors from time to time for day-to-day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plant, generator sets, electrical installations, electrical maintenance of high-mast towers, car parks, flood lights, street lights etc. and to maintain proper air traffic and air transport service as well as to maintain adequate safety device in the establishment of the Management. The Workmen were performing job, which were permanent and perennial in nature. They were working continuously and uninterruptedly since 1990 under direct control and supervision of the Officers of the Management. But they were not being paid wages at par with the employees of the Management, although they were discharging similar nature of duties. They were also not regularised in spite of insistence of the Workers’ Union. Thus, the Workers’ Union submitted a charter of demand to the Management of Biju Pattnaik Airport, which yielded no result. Accordingly, they moved the Conciliation Officer for redressal of their grievances, On the basis of failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘ID Act’), the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to learned Tribunal for adjudication of the aforesaid reference. The Workers’ Union relied upon a notification dated 16th November, 1999 published in the official gazette by the Government of India under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity ‘Contract Labour Act’) with regard to prohibition of contract labour. By virtue of said notification, contract labour in the job of operation and processes specified in the W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 Schedule appended to the said notification, was prohibited with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 16th November, 1999. Despite such prohibition of contract labour system in the establishment of Air Ports including Biju Pattnaik Airport (the Management), the Workmen were compelled to continue as contract labourers and their services were neither regularized nor were they paid equal wage for equal work as the employees of the Airport. Thus, they prayed for the relief of their regularisation under the Management and equal pay for equal work. 5.1 The Management filed their written statement disputing the claim of the Workmen. It is stated inter alia that it is not known to the Management as to whether sixteen Workmen, named in the list appended to the reference, were working continuously and uninterruptedly under any Contractor. The Contractors used to provide manpower for maintenance and installation of the air conditioning, generator sets, electrical installations etc. from time to time. The Contractors were selected in the tender process. Since the Workmen claimed to have continued under the Contractors, the question of regularization of their services under the Management did not arise at all. They were neither directly employed by the Management nor paid wages by the Management. It is the Contractors who are being engaged from time to time, provide such manpower and receive contract amount. It is also stated by the Management that there is no provision under the Contract Labour Act for absorption and regularization of the workers engaged by the Contractors in consequence of issuance of notification under Section 10 (1) of the W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 said Act. The notification dated 16th November, 1999 issued by the Government of India and relied upon by the Workmen has already been quashed by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.6540 of 1999 and a batch of writ petitions. As such, the contention raised by the Workmen for their regularization on the basis of the notification dated 16th November, 1999 would not arise at all. Hence, they prayed for answering the reference in favour of the Management. 6. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties and keeping in mind the terms of reference, learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute. (i) Whether the 16 numbers of contract labourers (as the to be regularized by per list) deserve Management; (ii) Whether the aforesaid contract labourers are entitled to get equal pay at par with their counter- part regular employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work? (iii) If not, to what relief the contract labourers are entitled? 6.1 All the issues were taken up simultaneously and learned Tribunal answered the issues against the Workmen and in favour of the Management. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed by the Workmen through the Workers’ Union. 7. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Workers’ Union submits that Workmen continued to serve the Management uninterruptedly since 1999. They were discharging their duties as per W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 the direction, instruction and assignment given by the Management from time to time. Although the notification dated 16th November, 1999 issued under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour Act was set aside by the Delhi High Court, but it was prospective in nature. When the Workmen raised the industrial dispute, said notification was in force. Thus, in view of the observation made by Delhi High Court, the Workmen are entitled to all benefits including their regularization and equal pay for equal work in terms of the said notification. This material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Tribunal. 7.1 Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel further submits that although the manpower was being supplied by different Contractors, but the Workmen (sixteen in number) were continuously engaged through different Contractors and there was no interruption in their service. Thus, they are entitled to be regularized and equal pay for equal work. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned award and for a direction to the Management to regularize their respective jobs and release equal pay for discharging equal work as that of the regular employees of the Management. 8. Mr. Madani, learned counsel for the Opposite Party- Management refutes the same and submits that by the time the reference was taken up for adjudication, notification dated 16th November, 1999 had already been set aside by Delhi High Court and it was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The observation made by Delhi High Court does not in any manner assist the Workmen for their regularization. He further submits that a person, if engaged W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 through a Contractor, cannot be said to be a direct employee under the Management, bereft of the fact that he had continued for a long period with the Management. 8.1 It is his submission that taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence available on record and the relevant case law, learned Tribunal passed a reasoned award Hence, it warrants no interference. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties; perused the materials including the case law placed before us. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and materials placed before us, this Court finds that Workmen verily relied upon the notification dated 16th November, 1999 issued by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour Act on the basis of which they claimed regularization of their services. The said notification prohibited contract labour in certain categories of employment under the Airport Authorities. The Workmen were continuing as contract labour at Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar under the Airport Authority of India. The said notification came to be questioned before Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6540 of 1999 along with a batch of similar such cases. Delhi High Court, while quashing the notification vide order dated 22nd November, 2001, held as under:- “In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision reasonably applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases also and in that view of the matter, following the ratio of the said decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd., (supra), I quash the impugned notification dated 16.11.1999 issued by the Central Government as the same W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, making it, however, clear that the aforesaid quashing of the notification shall have only prospective effect that is from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this Judgment, no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the notification on or before the date of this judgment which have attained finality or been implemented would in any manner be adversely effected. It shall also be open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum in case the petitioners are still aggrieved, in accordance with the observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Supra). All the petitions stand disposed of in terms of the said directions. So far the circular dated 16.11.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour is concerned, the parties are given the liberty to approach the Central Government in accordance with law for reconsideration of the matter in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd., (Supra).” (emphasis supplied) Although LPA Nos.530 of 2002 and LPA No.287 of 2002 were filed against the said order, but the order of learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench vide orders dated 24th July, 2002 and 20th September, 2002 respectively. Ultimately, the matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC No.956 of 2023). The Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31st January, 2003 with the following order:- “It is brought to our notice that the petitioners were party to the Letters Paten Appeal against which the present special leave petition is filed. Therefore, filing of the applications for permission to file special leave petition is not necessary. Dealy is condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.” W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 9.1 From the above, it is apparent that the notification dated 16th November, 1999 was quashed with prospective effect from the date of the judgment, i.e., 22nd November, 2001 passed by learned Single Judge. While parting with the judgment, learned Single Judge also clarified that order passed or action taken or given effect to on the basis of the said notification on or before the date of the said judgment, which attained finality or been implemented, would not in any manner be adversely effected. Admittedly, in the instant case, no order was passed or action taken either by the Management or by the Workmen on the basis of the notification dated 16th November, 1999, which had attained finality as on the date of the judgment of Delhi High Court. The matter was only referred to the learned Tribunal for adjudication. By the time the reference came up for adjudication before the learned Tribunal, the notification dated 16th November, 1999 was not in force. Thus, neither the notification dated 16th November, 1999 nor the observation of Delhi High Court is of any assistance to the Workmen. 10. While adjudicating the reference, the learned Tribunal, besides discussing the evidence on record, relied upon the case of International Air Cargo Workers Union -versus- International Airport Authority of India and others; (2009) 13 SCC 374 in which, it is observed that if the contract is for supply of labour necessarily, the labour supplied by the Contractor will work under the direction, supervision and control of the principal employer, but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 salary is paid by the Contractor. The right to regulate employment is with the Contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the Contractor and not with the principal employer. It is further observed therein that the principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labourer when such labourer is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But, it is the Contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be allotted/assigned to the principal employer or used otherwise. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if a contract labourer is supplied by a Contractor, even if he works as per the direction, supervision or assignment of work by the Management in the field, that does not entitle him to be treated as an employee of the principal employer/Management. 11. In the instant case, there is no material available on record with regard to the mode of payment of wages to the Workmen (either by the Contractor or by the Management) and what was their service condition. Initial burden of proof is on the Workmen to establish that they were performing their duties under the direction of the principal employer and they were paid their salary by the Management/principal employer to claim a right for being regularized in employment. In absence of such evidence, the claim of the Workmen to be regularized under the Management does not arise at all, as rightly observed in the impugned award. The Workmen might have been working continuously for a long period. But fact remains that they were working under the Contractor and were W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17 assigned to perform their duties with the Management. In that view of the matter, the claim of the Workmen to be regularized under the Management does not arise at all. 12. Since the Workmen were working as contract labourers being supplied by the Contractors their claim for equal status with that of the regular employees of the Management, so also their claim for equal pay for equal work does not arise at all. 13. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Tribunal has committed no error in answering the reference against the Workmen and in favour of the Management. 13.1 Only because a second view may be possible by reappreciation of evidence, the Writ Court in exercise of power under Article 227 should not sit over the findings of learned Tribunal as an appellate Court. In view of the above, the impugned award under Annexure-8 warrants no interference. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa Dated the 30th day of July, 2025/ s.s.satapathy W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019 Page 11 of 11