The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.32598 OF 2022 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) **** Siba Prasad Mallick, son of late Laxmidhar Sankhari Sahi, PO: Parbatipur, PS: Biridi, Dist: Jagatsinghpur Mallick, Village- … Petitioner -versus- 1. M/s Reliable and Intelligence Services Odisha Private Limited, Cuttack, Security 2. Management of Civil Supplies Officer-cum-District Manager, Supplies Odisha Corporation Limited, Jagatsinghpur, Industrial Officer, Dist: Bhubaneswar, State Civil 3. Presiding Tribunal, Khordha … Opposite Parties Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. Ramanath Acharya, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. Prajna Sarita Mohanty, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bamadev Baral, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.1) CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on : 08.07.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 By the Bench 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the award dated 25th August, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) in ID Case No.17 of 2017, whereby Second Party/Management No.1, namely, Reliable Security and Intelligence Services Odisha Private Limited, Cuttack was directed to pay monetary compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh (rupees two lakh only) to the Petitioner-Workman within three months from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette failing which, the awarded amount would carry interest @ 6% per annum till the actual payment. It was further directed that on failure to comply the award by the First Party Management No.1, the Workman will be entitled to take recourse of law to enforce the award. 3. For the convenience of discussion, the parties are described as per their status before learned Tribunal. Petitioner was the Workman, Opposite Party No.1-Reliable Security and Intelligence Services Odisha Private Limited, Cuttack was Management No.1 and Opposite Part No.2-Management of Civil Supply Officer -cum- District Manager, Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jagatsinghpur was Management No.2 before learned Tribunal. 4. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Second Party-Workman was duly engaged by the Management No.2 on 15th April, 2010 in the post of Watchman. The Workman W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 discharged his duties sincerely. Payment of wages to the Workman was being made on monthly basis through vouchers. While so continuing, the Management No.2 executed an agreement with Management No.1 on 1st December, 2010 and placed services of the Workman at the disposal of the Management No.1 without following the provisions of Section 9-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The same was not within the knowledge of the Workman. No appointment order whatsoever was issued either by the Management No.2 or Management No.1 in favour of the Workman at any point of time. While continuing as such, the Workman was terminated from service by the Management No.1 with effect from 11th July, 2012 without following due procedure of law. Hence, the Workman filed a complaint before the Conciliation Officer. A failure report being submitted, the matter was referred to learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government to answer the following reference. “Whether the termination of services of Siba Prasad Mallick, Ex-Watchman w.e.f. 09.07.2012 by way of refusal of employment by the Management of M/s Reliable Security & Intelligence Services Odisha Pvt. Ltd., At-Barabati Stadium, Cuttack and the Civil Supplies Officer-cum-District Manager, Odisha State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Jagatsinghpur is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Mallick is entitled?” 5. Answering the reference, learned Tribunal held that termination of the Workman by the First Party Management was neither legal nor justified. Hence, it was directed that the Management No.1 shall pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh to the Workman in lieu of reinstatement with back wages within three W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 months from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette with a condition that if the same is not paid within a period stipulated above, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment. Liberty was given to the Workman to enforce the award in the event it is not carried out by the Management No.1. 6. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel challenging the award submits that the Workman was initially appointed under the Management No.2, though no appointment order was issued in his favour. Without consent or knowledge of the Workman, his services was placed with the Management No.1 by Management No.2 with effect from 1st December, 2010. While continuing as such, he was terminated by the Management No.1 with effect from 9th July, 2012 without following the provisions under the Act. In support of his submission that the Workman was appointed by the Management No.2, namely, Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to Annexure-5 issued by the District Manager- Management No.2 on 16th April, 2010 indicating that the Workman was appointed by outsourcing agency, namely, Das Mishra and Associates, Chattered Accountants. It is contended that though Management No.2 was the employer of the Workman but to avoid rigors of law, such an appointment order was issued. Had the appointment been made by the outsourcing agency, the District Manager could not have issued appointment order. While the Workman was so continuing an agreement was executed on 23rd March, 2012 (Annexure-7) between the Management Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, it is submitted before execution of the agreement at Annexure- W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 7, the Workman was discharging his duties with Management No.2. He also drew attention to Letter No.919 (3) dated 28th October, 2010 issued by the District Manager of the Corporation/Opposite Party No.2 to Management No.1 intimating that the persons required against the category to be supplied for deployment. Admittedly, the Workman was working prior to 28th October, 2010. Thus, learned Tribunal committed an error in holding that the Workman was engaged with Management No.1 and was deployed to Management No.2 in the category of Watchman. It is further submitted that the Workman was never engaged by the Management No.1, although it is shown in the office record to avoid the rigors of Industrial Disputes Act and other laws. These aspects were completely brushed aside by learned Tribunal while answering the reference. Hence, he prays for setting aside Annexure-1 and to remit the matter to learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 6.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Workman placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements. i) (2015) 2 SCC (Land S) 46; (Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another) in which guidelines to compute 240 days in a calendar year has been provided. It is also held inter alia that the Tribunal while holding the termination to be illegal was justified in directing reinstatement of the Workman with full back wages keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of that case. W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 ii) (2004 SCC (L and S) 1034; (Dharmananda and another Vs. Union of India and Ors.), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held the employees of Canteen under Defence Ministry to be the Government servants and held their termination on expiry of the term of appointment to be illegal. iii) 2013 (I) ILR -CUT-31(Chief Executive Officer-cum- commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation limited Vs. Atul Kumar Barik), wherein, this Court modified the order of the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the learned Labor Court with a direction to pay 50% back wages instead of a lumpsum Rs.25,000/- from the date of termination till the date of award came into force and thereafter full salary till he is reinstated. iv) 2017 (I) ILR-CUT-638 (The Chief Executive, Chilika Development Authority Vs. Sri Girija Prasad Sahoo), wherein, this Court relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified part of the award passed by the Tribunal and directed the Management to reinstate the Workman. v) (2017) IV LLJ-1 (SC) 1 (Executive Engineer (C), BSNL Haryana Vs. Satpal), wherein, Hon’ble supreme Court directed the Appellant to pay a sum of to the Respondent in terms of Section 17-B of the Act and also pointed out that since the Respondent attained the age of 68 years so there would be no question of his re-employment. vi) (2017) III- LLJ-370 (Ori) (Bhusan Steel Ltd. Vs. Smt. Basanti Behera and another) in which, this Court held that the High W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 Court exercising its supervisory powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate Court to re- evaluate evidence and findings of fact made by a Tribunal, unless there is a clear error of law or jurisdiction. Based on the facts, the Court held that the award passed by the Tribunal is justified and does not require any interference. 7. Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that the Workman was earlier continued to discharge his duties with the Management No.2. On the request of Management No.2, the Workman was taken over to the pay roll of Management No.1. Since allegations were received against the Workman, his services was terminated by the Management No.1 with effect from 9th July, 2012. The Management No.1 does not have the knowledge as to whether the Workman was either continuing with another service provider or the Management No.2 before being taken over to the Pay roll of Management No.1. 7.1 It is, however, submitted by Mr. Baral, learned counsel that Management No.1 had also challenged the award in W.P.(C) No.11307 of 2023, which was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 11th July, 2023 to deposit the amount as directed in the impugned award, before the Registry of this Court. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Miss Mohanty, learned counsel for Management No.2 submits that the Workman was earlier in the pay roll of M/s Das Mishra and Associates, a service provider. When the matter stood thus, the Management No.2, vide its Letter No.12667 dated 27th November, W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 2009, directed all the CSO-cum-District Managers of the Corporation/Management No.2 to submit detail requirement of temporary engagement of staff for paddy procurement operation during KMS 2010-11 through the service providing agency in the format attached to the said latter. The Management No. 1 being selected to provide manpower for procurement of paddy, the Workman who was working under Management No.2 being deployed by the service provider, namely, M/s Das Mishra and Associates vide Letter No.465 dated 16th April, 2010 (Ext.K) under Annexure-C/2 to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.2 for a period of three months, i.e., from 16th April, 2010 to 16th July, 2010 was brought to the pay roll of Management No.1. As such, the Workman was never appointed by the Management No.2 and all throughout he was being engaged by the service providers, namely, M/s Das Mishra and Associates and subsequently by the Management No.1. Thus, the findings of learned Tribunal in directing the Management No.1 to pay monetary compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh (rupees two lakh only) within three months from the date of publication of the award is justified and need not be interfered with. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the record placed before us. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it reveals that the Workman was previously deployed with Management No.2 being engaged by the service provider, namely, M/s Das Mishra and Associates, vide Ext.J. Subsequently, upon engagement of Management No.1 as the service provider of the W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 Management No.2, his services was placed with Management No.1. The Workman continued as such till his date of termination, i.e., till 9th July, 2012. It is admitted by the Workman and submitted as such by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Workman that he was under the pay roll of Management No.1. No material is placed before this Court to come to a conclusion that the Workman was ever under the pay roll of Management No.2. During his continuance, the Workman had never raised any objection in receiving his wages from the Management No.1. 10.1 In course of argument, however, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Workman drew attention to certain absent statements issued by Management No.2 and submits that he was under the employment of Management No.2 throughout. Such a submission cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the Workman was deployed to work under Management No.2 by the service provider (Management No.1). Since the Workman was discharging his duties with Management No.2, absent statement was being submitted by Management No.2. From the record, it appears that EPF is being deducted from the wages of the Workman by the Management No.1 to be deposited before the authority. These materials go to show that the Workman was being engaged by a service provider and was continued with Management No.1 till his termination. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that the Workman was at any point of time was engaged and under the pay roll of the Management No.2. W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 16-Jul-2025 14:50:09 11. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the Workman are of no assistance to him in view of the facts and circumstances stated and discussions made above. 12. On assessment of the pleadings of the parties, evidence both oral and documentary, as well as contentions raised learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the termination of the Workman by the Management No.1 was neither legal nor justified and directed it to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh to the Workmen in lieu of his reinstatement and back wages. As the Workman was under the pay roll of Management No.1, a service provider, learned Tribunal thought it proper to award lumpsum compensation to the Workman in lieu of his reinstatement and back wages. There is no perversity in the impugned award. We also find no infirmity in the said direction. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. LCR be sent back forthwith. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa Dated the 8th day of July, 2025/ s.s.satapathy W.P(C). NO.32598 OF 2022 Page 10 of 10