The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 11876 of 2021 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ******* Sundargarh Sangha represented by the General Secretary, Prasanta Kumar Behera Shramik …. Petitioner -versus- 1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar 2. General Manager Eastern Region SAIL House, Kolkata 3. Branch Manager, Branch Sales Central Marketing Organization F- 10, Office SAIL of Rourkela 4. Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office Labour Regional of Commissioner (Central)Rourkela, Sundergarh the …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners : Ms. Debadeepta Sahoo, Advocate with Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Debasis Satapathy, Senior Panel Counsel (for O.P. Nos. 1 and 4) Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, Advocate (for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
Heard and Disposed of on : 26.08.2025 Page 1 of 8 By the Bench:- JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner-Union in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 21st February, 2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for brevity “the learned Tribunal”) in Industrial Dispute Case No. 65 of 2012. 3. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing along with Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union submits that Workmen, 14 (fourteen) in number, to whom the Petitioner- Union represents, were engaged as casual Workmen in the Central Marketing Organization, SAIL at Rourkela Office (for brevity “the Management”). The Workmen, through the Petitioner-Union, raised demand to regularize their services and to pay them wages at par with the employees of the Management. The demand raised by the Petitioner-Union was not paid any heed for which they approached the labour machinery for conciliation. On submission of failure report by the Conciliation Officer, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Tribunal to adjudicate the following reference:- “Whether the demand of the Union to regularize 14 casual workmen (list enclosed) by the Central Marketing Organization, SAIL at their Rourkela office is legal and justified and whether these workmen are entitled to get SAIL wages? If so, what benefit these workmen are entitled to?” W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 2 of 8 4. The second party Union filed its statement of claim on behalf of the Workmen. It is stated inter alia that the Workmen were engaged in the Rourkela Office of the Management. The said branch office had no sanctioned post of Sweeper and Diary Dispatch Clerk. It has also no sufficient Class-IV staff. Hence, the Branch Manager of the Management engaged the Workmen for Sweeping and cleaning of the office rooms, for supplying water, distribution of dak, gardening, tea making and for attending to other essential nature of jobs. The Workmen were working there for 12 to 30 years continuously and they were paid monthly wages uninterruptedly varying from Rs.700/- to Rs.3800/- per month depending upon the nature of work and job discharged by them. There was no provision for casual leave, earned leave or medical leave for the Workmen. No attendance register was also being maintained to mark attendance of the Workmen. But, their attendance was being marked on plain paper sheets by the concerned officer on the basis of which, they were paid their wages at the end of the month and thereafter such attendance sheets were being destroyed. Since some of the Workmen were required to go inside the prohibited area of the Rourkela Steel Plant, they were issued with identity card. In view of the above, the Workmen approached the Management for regularization of their services and equal pay for equal work. Such demand of the Workmen was not fulfilled. Thus, they approached the Conciliation Officer to resolve the dispute. On failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute. As such, they prayed for W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 3 of 8 being regularized and to be paid wages at par with the regular employees of the Management. 5. The Management filed written statement stating that the disputant Workmen were never engaged either by the General Manager or by the Branch Manager or any Authority of the SAIL (Management). The Management has its own recruitment Rules for appointment of any staff or officer in the establishment. The Workmen had never applied for or faced any selection process for being engaged/appointed under the Management. The Workmen were intermittently being used for sweeping, cleaning and other works depending upon the situation. Such Workmen were never worked against any sanctioned post. The Management also denied payment of any wages to any of the Workmen through vouchers. Two of the Workmen, namely, Sri Purnamasi Choudhury and Sri Jagadish Prajapati were engaged through Contractors and who had been paid as such for doing certain electrical work. Hence, the Management denied the claim of the Workmen. 6. Taking into consideration the rival pleading of the parties learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- by the the Union “i) Whether to the demand of regularize 14 casual workmen (list enclosed to the Central Marketing reference) Organization, SAIL at their Rourkela office is legal and justified? ii) Whether these workmen are entitled to get SAIL wages? iii) If so, what benefit these workmen are entitled to?” W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 4 of 8 7. In support of their case, the Workman examined seven witnesses (W.W.1 to W.W.7) and filed documents which were exhibited as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-8. The Management, on the other hand, examined only one witness (M.W.1) who was the Senior Manager (Personnel and Administration), SAIL, Eastern Region, Kolkata and exhibited certain documents which were marked as Exhibit-‘A’ to Exhibit-‘AG’. 8. Learned Tribunal took up all the issues simultaneously and answered all the issues against the Workman. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that learned Tribunal ought to have scrutinized the documents marked Exhibits- 1 to 8 and proved by the Workmen and granted the relief sought for. It is also submitted that the Workmen were being paid through vouchers. They were also provided medical facilities. Two of the Workmen were also issued with identity cards as they were working in prohibited zone of Rourkela Steel Plant. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and passed the impugned award. 10. Mr. Bijoy Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the Management submits that the impugned award is a reasoned one. Learned Tribunal considered the documents and negatived the claim of the Workmen. This being a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, reappreciation of evidence available on record may not be undertaken. He read out the relevant portion of the award and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 5 of 8 the impugned award under Annexure-1 which would warrant interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records placed before us. 12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record placed before us, it is apparent that the fourteen Workmen, to whom the Petitioner-Union represented, were working intermittently in the Office of the Management for sweeping, cleaning, making tea and dispatching dak etc. It is also an admitted case that the workmen were not engaged/appointed against any sanctioned post of the Management. W.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that the Workmen had neither applied for any post nor had they faced any interview to work with the Management. It is also the admitted case of the Union / Workmen that there is a set of Recruitment Rules of the Management in place, which governs the field of recruitment of staff and officers of the Management. The Petitioner-Union relied upon the vouchers at Exhibit-1 series to establish that the Workmen were being paid by the Management for the job being discharged by them. It is thus submitted that some payments were being made to some of the Workman through vouchers. But learned Tribunal on scrutiny of those documents, which were 505 in number, came to a conclusion that the vouchers were either for reimbursement or sanction/approval and drawal by the officers of the Management. The vouchers at Exhibit-1 series do not suggest that any payment was being made to the Workmen for their wages through those vouchers. Neither Exhibit- 1 series nor any document available on W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 6 of 8 case record goes to establish that the Workmen were continuing uninterruptedly with the Management for last eighteen to thirty years, as claimed. 13. Law is well-settled that in order to establish relationship of employer and employee, there must be pleadings as well as evidence available on record to infer.— i) who has employed the persons, who claimed to be the employees of the Management; ii) who makes payment for wages/salary to such employees; iii) under whose control and supervision, the employees work. In the instant case, neither there is any document to show that the Workmen were engaged directly by the Management. There is also no evidence on record to show that the Management was paying wages to the Workmen directly and/or they were in the payroll of the Management and they were working under the control and supervision of the Management. 14. The Workmen themselves admitted in their evidence that no appointment/engagement order was/were issued in their favour. On the other hand, there is evidence on record to show that the some of the Workmen, out of the list appended to the reference, were being employed intermittently to meet the day-to-day workload or in case of exigency of the Management. There is no evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the Workmen were employed by the Management for 240 days in a calendar year. Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’ disclosed payment made to two of the Workmen, namely, Sri Purnamasi Choudhury and Sri Jagadish Prajapati, who were engaged to do certain electrical works through Contractor. They were being paid their wages through the said W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 7 of 8 Contractor. They were not in the payroll of the Management at any point of time. There is no material on record to show that the Workmen were performing similar nature of job as that of the regular employees of the Management. There is also no material on record that they were taking up equal responsibility as that of the regular employees of the Management. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner for equal pay for equal work is also no sustainable. 15. On a cumulative assessment of the case of the parties and evidence available on record, this Court finds that learned Tribunal has meticulously dealt with the same. On a scrutiny of the materials, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned award under Annexure-1. Thus, the Workmen have made out no case for interference in the impugned award under Annexure-1. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. However, in the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 26th Day of August, 2025//Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2025 10:44:56 W.P.(C) No. 11876 of 2021 Page 8 of 8