Tack High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH TACK HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1863 of 2015 Akuli Charan Behera and others ..... Petitioners thers State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Oppo -versus- Advocates appea appeared in this case: For Petitioners :Mr. B. N. Mohanty, Advocate arties For Opp. Parties : Mr. T. K. Dash, Addl. Govt. Ad for opposite party nos.1 and 2 vt. Advocate Mr. D. P. Nanda, Senior Advoc Advocate for opposite party no.3 CORAM: THE HON'BL INHA ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'B ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------- Date of he ------------------------- ARINDAM SIN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- e of hearing and judgment :16th December, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SINHA, J. ----------------------- ber, 2024 -----------------------
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. Moha Mohanty, learned advocate appears on on behalf of petitioner. He su He submits, impugned is decision of the State e State Advisory Board reflected i cted in minutes of 26th meeting held on 22nd September, W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 2010. Reasons g sons given for not abolishing specified contr contract labour Page 1 of 6 relating to watch watch and ward in opposite party no.3 (Odis (Odisha Power Generation Corpo Corporation Limited) do not bear scrutiny. T iny. The reasons paragraph from th from the minutes is reproduced below. “... ... The The Board after detailed deliberation on the the report of the Dep Deputy Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur c ur came to a conclusi lusion that watch & ward/security services ices of the industry is ry is not a regular/perennial nature of wor work. The security pe ty personnel should be able bodied persons ons having special tra l training to guard the factory. Without out proper training th g through security agencies, their deploym loyment in the factory ctory may endanger the safety and security rity of the factory. H y. Hence, the Board after consensus o s opinion resolved to ed to move the Government for non-abolition ition of the contract la ct labour system in respect of 131 security rity guards as well a ll as watch and ward/security services ces of the industry. ... ...” 2. On query m uery made Mr. Mohanty submits, it is perenn perennial nature of work that the w at the workmen do. Contractual engagement fo ent for the work should be aboli abolished to pave the way for his clien s clients to be regularized. On f . On further query he relies on judgment of the t of the Supreme Court in Barat F arat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. State of Karnataka nataka, reported in (2001) 4 SCC erence. SCC 498, paragraph-10. There be interference 3. Mr. Dash Dash, learned advocate, Additional Go al Government Advocate appear appears on behalf of State and supports reasons reasons given by W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 Page 2 of 6 the Board. He rel He relies on explanation under sub-section (2) on (2) in section 10, Contract La ct Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, Act, 1970. He submits, the expl e explanation is, if a question arises whether ther any process for operation or on or other work is of perennial nature, the d , the decision of the appropriate g riate government thereon should be final. Th al. The reasons gives decision th ion that nature of the work involved is not per ot perennial. He submits, the writ e writ petition be dismissed. 4. Mr. Nanda Nanda, learned senior advocate appears on rs on behalf of opposite party no arty no.3 and submits, no interference is warr s warranted. He relies on view ta iew taken by coordinate Bench on judgment d ment dated 18th May, 2006 in in OJC no.3158 of 1994 (Bijaya Kumar mar Jena and others v. Union Union of India & others, paragraph-9. He 9. He supports contention of St of State to submit, decision has been tak n taken by the Board, on the m the matter referred to it by order of this f this Court in petitioners’ earlie ’ earlier writ petition. He also relies on a judgm judgment of the Supreme Court in ourt in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union Union of India, reported in (200 (2006) 12 SCC 233, inter alia, paragrap ragraph-20. The paragraph is repr is reproduced below. “20. The 1 he 1970 Act is a complete code by itself. It n It not only provides f es for regulation of contract labour bu but also abolition t on thereof. Relationship of employer and em d employee is essential ntially a question of fact. Determination of th of the said W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 Page 3 of 6 question w on would depend upon a large number of f of factors. Ordinarily arily, a writ court would not go into s to such a on.” question.” 5. Mr. Mohan Mohanty in reply also relies on Steel Authorit thority of India Ltd. (supra), para paragraph-23 reproduced below. “23. A dec decision in that behalf undoubtedly is requ required to be taken u en upon following the procedure laid down i wn in sub- section (1 (1) of Section 10 of the 1947 (sic) A ic) Act. A notification ation can be issued by an appropriate Gover overnment prohibiting iting employment of contract labour if the the factors enumerate rated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the f the 1970 Act are sat e satisfied.” He submits, it is s, it is for the writ Court to see from the sp the specious reasons given, wh r not. whether the conditions are satisfied or not. 6. We see tha see that discretion has been provided to the a the appropriate government unde t under section 10. Relied upon explanation fo tion fortifies the discretion, for in for interpretation that it is absolute discretio iscretion. In the circumstances, th ces, though sub section (2) provides for releva relevant factors, a strict scrutiny o utiny of reasons given, when the appropriate iate government enjoys absolute d olute discretion, may not be possible. 7. In Barat arat Fritz Werner Ltd. (supra), paragrap ragraph-10, the Supreme Court r ourt referred to section 10. The case was dea as dealt with on upholding the ab the abolition made by the appropriate governm vernment in that W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 case. The contrac ontract labour was abolished. Appellant before before Supreme Page 4 of 6 Court was a co a company that had had its affairs made subj e subject matter rence of a reference to the Board for Industrial and and Financial Reconstruction (B tion (BIFR) constituted under Sick Industrial C strial Companies (Special Provisio rovisions) Act, 1985, since repealed. The Supre Supreme Court in that case rej se rejected contention of appellant-compan mpany seeking exception agains against the abolition because it had been refe n referred. The Supreme Court a ourt also noted there was report that the comp company could be revived. The d . The decision does not come to aid of petitione titioners. 8. So far as ar as Bijaya Kumar Jena (supra) is concerned cerned, that was a clear case of se of claim made by appellants before this e this Court for regularization. H ion. Here petitioners are seeking the abolition lition to thereby have regularizati arization. There may be similarity but for pu for purposes of reliance as a view a view of precedent, it is not applicable. 9. In Steel A teel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), the Supr e Supreme Court was dealing with g with a situation of interference by the High C igh Court, with reasons for or ag or against abolition. In that context the decla declaration that the High Court w ourt would not go into such a question. We hav e have not and do not intend nd to attempt at adjudicating what were or c re or can be the reasons, for or a r or against abolition. We have already stated stated our view regarding discret discretion provided to the appropriate gover government by section 10. W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 Page 5 of 6 10. Mr. Mohan Mohanty contended on paragraph-23 in Steel Steel Authority of India Ltd. (su (supra). We are unable to accept his interp interpretation of the paragraph si aph simply because, in paragraph-20 the Ben e Bench of the Supreme Court s ourt said that the writ Court would not interfe interfere. In that context when p hen paragraph-23 is read, the power to a to abolish on circumstances fo ces found to exist on factors enumerated, as s as satisfied, is with the appropri propriate government. 11. In view of iew of aforesaid we are unable to interfere in ere in favour of petitioners. How . However, we do observe in context of the of the facts and circumstances th ces that the State allowing opposite party party no.3 to continue to contr contractually engage, must ensure industrial p strial peace to be maintained on on labour relations in respect of the emplo employment by opposite party no rkers. arty no.3, of petitioners as contractual workers. 12. The writ pe
Decision
writ petition is disposed of. Gs/dutta Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 17-Dec-2024 20:29:43 W.P.(C) no.1863 of 2015 (Arindam Sin Sinha) Judge ahoo) (M.S. Saho Judge Page 6 of 6