The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 41820 OF 2023 Dusmanta Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Chiranjeev Bidyabhushan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party No.1) Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Susanta Dash, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.3) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.09.2025 8. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner-Workman in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 2nd September, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.56 of 2022, wherein it has been directed that the Petitioner shall be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service and back wages and it was also directed that the First Party Management No.2-Opposite Party No.3 (the Contractor) shall pay the awarded amount to the Workman within a period of two months from the date of notification of the Award in the Official Gazette. Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 2.1 The First Party Management No.1-Opposite Party No.2 (Principal Employer) was also directed to ensure payment of the aforesaid amount to the Workman within the stipulated period by the Contractor failing which the Principal Employer would pay the awarded compensation to the Workman and recover the same from the Contractor in terms of the Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It was further directed that in the event the award is not implemented within the stipulated period, the compensation amount would carry a simple interest of 6% per annum till it is realised from the First Party-Managements-Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3. 3. Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was working as a Watchman under Opposite Party No.2 being engaged through Opposite Party No.3. His monthly salary was Rs.9,947/-. The Petitioner was retrenched from service, w.e.f., 31st August, 2020 without complying with the mandatory provisions under Section 25-F of the Act. Hence, he raised an industrial dispute before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal and prayed for conciliation. No step was taken within 45 days of filing of such application. Hence, finding no other alternative, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) on 28th October, 2022, which was registered as I.D. Case No.56 of 2022. Although learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of the Petitioner was illegal, but without issuing a direction for his reinstatement, a meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards lump sum compensation was awarded in Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Hence, the Petitioner being aggrieved has filed this writ petition. 4. According to Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel, the law is well settled that when the termination of the Workman is held to be illegal for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, ordinarily a direction should be made for reinstatement of the Workman with full back wages. Without assigning good reasons, learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Hence, he prays for a direction for reinstatement of the Petitioner with full back wages or in the alternative award a higher amount of compensation in lieu of his reinstatement. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3-the Contractor, submits that the Petitioner has not made any prayer in the present writ petition for reinstatement. He has only paid for enhancement of compensation. Thus, the adequacy of compensation is the only issue to be adjudicated in the writ petition. It is his submission that taking into consideration the salary of the Petitioner and his period of continuance with the Opposite Party No.3, learned Tribunal directed for payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The same is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the Petitioner is a Contractor and is not in a position to reinstate the Petitioner at present. It is also submitted that the on completion of the contract period, the services of the Petitioner came to an end. Thus, the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered under Section-2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The said Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Tribunal while adjudicating the matter. He, however, concedes that the impugned award under Annexure-1 has not been challenged by Opposite Party No.3, the Contractor. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL, who is the principal employer, on instruction, submits that due to default of the Opposite Party No.3 towards payment of GST, the OPTCL-Opposite Party No.3 received demand notices from O/o CT & GST Circle, Bhubaneswar and ultimately paid a hefty amount of Rs.8,47,867/- for default of Opposite Party No.3. He further submits that due to repeated defaults of the Contractor- Opposite Party No.3 in paying the statutory dues, the contract awarded in favour of the Contractor-Opposite Party No.3 was determined. Thus, the OPTCL has nothing to do with termination of the Petitioner, as he was engaged through the Contractor- Opposite Party No.3. Although the OPTCL being the principal employer is bound under the provisions to pay the compensation and recover the same from the Contractor in view of clear provision under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, but it is not liable to pay the amount as awarded by learned Tribunal. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed on record the order dated 27th June, 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.41095 of 2023 and similar such cases [W.P.(C) No.38757 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.38758 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.38760 of 2023 disposed of on 31st July, 2024]. It is his submission that the Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 security personnel, working with Opposite Party N.2 being engaged through Opposite Party No.3, had filed the above referred writ petitions. On similar plea they were terminated by the Opposite Party No.3 due to determination of the contract by the OPTCL with the Opposite Party No.3-Contractor. They were also drawing a salary of Rs. 9,947/- per month at the time of their termination. Likewise, though the Petitioners in the said writ petitions were terminated on account of determination of contract, but they were not paid the statutory dues at the time of termination. Thus, taking into consideration the salary of the security personnel being drawn by them at the time of their termination and their services rendered, the Co-ordinate Bench enhanced the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 8. Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. Susanta Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 do not dispute the factual position, as submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to similarity in the nature of job and salary rendered by the Petitioners in the said writ petitions. It is also apparent from the said order that the Petitioners therein were also terminated on 31st August, 2020. 9. Thus, taking into consideration the similarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to take a different view. 10. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.3-the Contractor is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) to the Petitioner in lieu of his reinstatement and back wages within a period of two months hence. If the said Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2025 14:20:37 amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the Principal Employer-Opposite Party No.2 shall be liable to pay the same and recover the amount paid to the Petitioner from the Contractor- Opposite Party No.3 under Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it shall carry a simple interest of Rs.6% per annum till it is realized from the first party managements, as directed by learned Tribunal. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned award under Annexure-1. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 6 of 6