The Odisha
G a z e t t e
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 1327 CUTTACK, TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2024/ASADHA 18, 1946
LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 29th June 2024
S.R.O. No. 343/2024—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947), the Award dated the 29th April 2024 passed in the I.D. Case No. 01 of 2022 by Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore to whom the industrial dispute between the Senior General Manager
(Electrical), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC, At Bariniput, Dist. Koraput and Prasanta
Kumar Dwibedy, Secretary, Potteru Kshudra Jala Bidyut Shramika Sangha, Gompakonda, Kalimela,
Dist. Malkangiri, PIN-764047 and 31 others was referred to for adjudication is hereby published as
in the schedule below :–
SCHEDULE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT, JEYPORE, DIST. KORAPUT
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 01 OF 2022
Dated the 29th April 2024
[ U/s. 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disutes Act, 1947 ]
Present :
Shri Bidyadhar Prusty, M.A., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Jeypore.
Between :
The Senior General Manager (Electrical),
. .
First Party—Management
Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC,
At Bariniput, Dist. Koraput.
Versus
Prasanta Kumar Dwibedy, Secretary,
. .
Second Party—Workmen
Potteru Kshudra Jala Bidyut Shramika Sangha,
Gompakonda, Kalimela, Dist. Malkangiri,
PIN-764047 and 31 others
2
Appearances :
Shri T. Dash, Advocate
. .
For the First Party—Management
Shri B. Panigrahi & Associates
. .
For the Second Party— Workmen
Date of Argument
. .
05-04-2024
Date of Award
. .
29-04-2024
The matter arises out of a reference submitted by the Appropriate Govt. Under Section
12 (5) read with S. 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (for brevity herein
after referred as I.D. Act, 1947) in the matter of the industrial dispute between both the parties.
1. Brief facts of the case of the 2nd Party Workmen is as follows :–
In their statement of claim the present workmen averred that they are working in the Potteru
Small Hydro Electric Project (Operation & Maintenance) at Gompagonda, under Orissa Hydro
Power Corporation Ltd. (OHPC), for more than 19 to 27 years. Instead of regularizing their services,
the management has shown them as contract labourers by making the payment through different
contractors, who never come to the place of their work to supervise or control their work. They
contended that they are languishing in the remote area, which is a Naxal hit and Malaria prone
area, with false assurances of regularizing their services by the management. While the matter
stood thus, regular posts are required for the Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project and for that
reason the Senior General Manager (Electrical) as per its letter dated the 6th October 2001 requested
the Head Office of the Senior General Manager (Electrical), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project,
Bariniput, Jeypore to sanction the posts and to regularize the services of the present workmen
who are continuing as contract labourers. The Manager (Electrical) Potteru Electrical Division,
Kalimela and the Senior General Manager (Electrical) Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project in its
letter dated the 10th May 2002 recommended the case of the workmen for their absorption under
regular establishment in TNE Cadre against the required manpower and requested the Senior
General Manager (Electrical), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project to sanction the proposed post
for Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project. Further, the Manager, Potteru Electrical Division as per
letter dated the 15th March 2002 forwarded the application of the workmen to consider for absorption
in OHPC enclosing their details to the Senior General Manager as per its letter dated the 10th May
2002 and also forwarded to the Energy Department, Government of Odisha requesting to regularize
the services of the members of the workmen Union and to absorb them in the regular establishment
of OHPC. They further averred that in the 12th review meeting of Odisha Hydro Power Corporation
Ltd. (OHPC) held at Bhubaneswar on the 23rd May 2002, where the issue of regularization of the
workmen in the TNE Grade was discussed and it was decided to sanction the post as proposed
and all the workmen, who are working as contract labourers be absorbed under TNE Cadre
considering their satisfactory performances and devotion to duties. The Senior General Manager
(Electrical) Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project in its letter dated the 27th December 2004 highlighting
the law and order situation due to the threat of Naxals, regarding regularization of services of the
workmen, requested the authorities to take immediate action on the issue to sort out the problem.
In spite of the above, when the services of the workmen were not regularized, and they were
allowed to continue under namesake contractors, they made representations to the appropriate
authorities to regularize their services and to give them the salary of the TNE Grade.
In spite of several efforts made by the present workmen, when their issue was not
considered for regularization, the members of the workmen Union individually approached before
3
the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11828/2009 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose
the said writ petition as per order dated the 7th September 2009 with a direction to the management
to take a decision on the letter, written by the Senior General Manager (Elecl.) dated the
10th May 2002, within a period of three months. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Court, no
action was taken by the management and on the other hand the Manager, Potteru Electrical Division,
Kalimela as per its letter dated the 8th April 2010, wrote to the Senior General Manager (Electrical),
Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project with copy to Director (Operation) Corporate Office,
Bhubaneswar to sort out the problem lying in Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project. The Asst.
General Manager (Elec.), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, Bariniput issued a letter on the
21st March 2012, intimating the present workmen, the decision of the Management of OHPC for
outright sale of Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project including all assets and liabilities on “as is
where is basis”. After receipt of said letter, all the workmen individually filed application/representation
on the 7th May 2012 to the Management to absorb them in Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project or
elsewhere under Odisha Hydro Power Corporation, condoning the age criteria. They further averred
that the Potteru Khudra Jala Bidyut Shramik Sangha, which has been formed and which is a
registered Trade Union, duly registered under Trade Unions Act, 1926, has also submitted
representations on the 10th May 2012 to Orissa Hydro Power Corporation to consider the case of
the present workmen and to absorb them in Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project or elsewhere
under Orissa Hydro Power Corporation. They contended that challenging the decision of the
management for outright sale of Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project, the present workmen filed
W.P. (C) No. 9841 of 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, which is pending for disposal after
maintaining status quo ante.
The workmen further averred that around 100 posts are vacant and/or going to be vacant
under OHPC and its various units due to retirement of the employees in the year 2012 itself. They
averred that on 18/19th May 2012, the management has issued advertisement for 35 posts of
Senior Clerk (22 Nos.), Steno-cum-Computer Operator (10 Nos.) and Ladies Assistant (3 Nos.)
and presently many posts are lying vacant due to retirement of the employees. But the management,
instead of regularizing the services of the workmen with all consequential service benefits, are
compelling them to continue with meager amount under the namesake contractors which is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power. They stated that when the management did not
consider the case of the workmen for regularization of their services, they filed representations
dated the 24th January 2017 to the management for regularization of their services, including
therewith their details like date of birth, date of joining, qualification and nature of work etc.
Finding no way out, the present workmen preferred W.P.(C) No. 4799/2017 with a prayer to
abolish contract labour system in the establishment of management and for regularization of their
services. The said writ application was disposed of on the 5th May 2017 with a direction to the
OHPC to take a decision on the representation filed by the workmen on the 24th January 2017 as
expeditiously as possible. The management on the 17th July 2017 rejected the representation of
the present workmen on two grounds, namely that the previous Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.
9841 of 2012 is pending adjudication for regularization of the members of the Petitioner and as
there is no relation of employer-employee exist, their case has no merit for consideration. The
applicant-workmen challenging the said order dated the 17th July 2017, have preferred W.P.(C)
No. 3402 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, who vide order dated the 28th March
2019 directed the workmen to approach the appropriate forum challenging the said order of rejection
of regularization.
4
When during the pendency of both the writ applications, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 9841 of 2012 &
W.P.(C) No. 21155 of 2012, the management with an ill intention and to outreach the interim orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court, had published advertisement No. 02/2019 on the 2nd March
2019 for the post of various Trainees, i.e. Electric Trainee [Operator (E1), Electrician & Lineman],
Mechanical Trainee [Operator (Mechanical)], Fitter, Welder Trainee, Crane Operator Trainee,
Wireman Trainee & Store Keeper Trainee, with Corrigendum “that any appointment made pursuant
to the said advertisement No. 02/2019 dated the 2nd March 2019 shall be subject to the result of
pending writ petition filed in W.P. (C) No. 21155 of 2012 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.” In
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the workmen though are serving in their
respective posts since more than 19-27 years, but their age was not relaxed for recruitment against
such posts. Further it was clarified in the advertisement that any worker working under any
manpower service providers/outsourcing agencies, were considered only for 15 years of service
and their age was also relaxed but not the present workmen. Such outcast by OHPC to the workmen
is illegal and discriminatory. The workmen will have no place left to serve, if such advertisements
are not quashed. Then they had filed two writ petitions challenging both the advertisements vide
W.P. (C) No. 7372/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 7482/2019 which are pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble Court.
The workmen further averred that they are working continuously for more than 20 years in
the establishment of the management, have accrued a right in their favour to be regularized in
service, particularly when posts are vacant under the management but advertising for fresh
appointment by the management is only trying to change the conditions of their service. Further,
as the job performed by the workmen are perennial in nature and they are continuing for more than
20 years under different contractors, they averred that the said system be abolished and the
workmen be absorbed under the management. In the meantime, during the pendency of their
challenge to the said advertisements, the workmen approached the Labour Authorities, i.e. District
Labour Officer, Malkangiri seeking their regularization as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court.
The DLO, Malkangiri on the 3rd May 2019 issued notice to the Senior General Manager (Electrical),
Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project for conciliation between the parties. In spite of repeated
Ietters dated the 3rd May 2019, 3rd July 2019, 5th September 2019, 1st October 2020, 15th January
2021 and lastly on the 8th February 2021 to appear before the DLO for conciliation process, did not
come to the table for dialogue and settlement of issues. After several reminders, on the 31st March
2021, the management had submitted its stand stating the same plea as taken in its writ application
filed before the Hon’ble Court that as the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court, it
cannot take a decision regarding the regularization of the workmen and hence the grievances file
by them have no merit. Thereby leading such conciliation proceedings to a failure between both
the parties and the report was submitted to the Appropriate Government for further action, who
subsequently referred the matter before this Court for further adjudication of the matter.
After filing of the show cause by the management, the workmen also filed their rejoinder and
subsequent rejoinder, denying the pleadings of management. In their rejoinder, they averred that
such advertisement was challenged by the 2nd party workmen on the ground that the consequential
selection process are in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Service
Manual, as they are continuing in various such posts since more than 25 years and new recruitment
is illegal. They averred that the claim of the 1st party management that there is non- requirement of
additional posts is false and concocted.
5
They further submitted that some of the workmen of second party workmen were employed
directly by the Corporation through NMR/DLR, which is also borne from the records and also from
the correspondences in regard to the proposal of staffing pattern required for regularization of the
second party workmen with the 1st party management, which indicates that the second party
workmen are necessary for the functioning of the first party management. Further, they approached
the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 8984 of 2019 and said writ petition was disposed of by the
Hon’ble High Court on the 16th May 2019, wherein it was held that the grievances of the second
party workmen is pending before the management and it was further directed that the Labour
Authorities will complete the conciliation proceedings within a stipulated time and take statutory
steps. Therefore, the present proceeding before this Court is being rightly invoked under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 for claiming regularization of their services. They submitted that the applicability
of CLARA, 1970 as pleaded by the 1st party management in the present case is absolutely not
relevant in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Court. They further averred that they are being
employed by the management, it used to issue directions with reference to disciplinary action and
work. The attendance used to be marked by the employees of OHPC. The contractors are mere
commission agents and contract itself was sham and bogus. The works performed by the present
workmen are of perennial and permanent in nature. Therefore, they are, in fact and in law, the
employees of OHPC, the management. They contended that though every year a tender is floated
by the management for providing workmen to the Corporation, but they continued to work with the
management, irrespective of whosoever is the contractor and also no appointment and termination
is observed by any of the contractor every year. Therefore, the contract is only a paperwork and
sham document. They further averred that the attendance and disciplinary action against the present
workmen were initiated/recommended by the 1st party management. The day-to-day work of the
workmen is regulated, controlled and supervised by the management. Therefore, there is no doubt
that the contract is sham and bogus one and there is jural relation of employer- employee between
the parties. With the above averments, the present workmen prayed to adjudicate the reference in
their favour and to direct the 1st party management to regularize/absorb them into the present
project (Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project) from the date of their initial appointment with all
consequential service benefits or to regularize/absorb them in other project of the management
from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential service benefits, in the interest of
justice.
2. Brief facts of the case of the 1st party management is as follows:–
On receipt of notice, the management has entered its appearance and filed its show cause.
In its show cause, it denied the averments made in the claim statement of the 2nd party workmen.
It averred that the Odisha Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. (O.H.P.C.) is a Public Limited Company of
Govt. of Odisha, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Upper Kolab Hydro Electric
Project (UKHE Project) and Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project (Potteru Project) including all
other Hydro Power Projects functioning under Govt. of Odisha and erstwhile Odisha State Electricity
Board in short OSEB along with its personnel, assets, liabilities, properties, etc. are transferred to
OHPC with effect from the 1st April 1996 as per provisions of Odisha Electricity Reform Act, 1995.
In order to undertake temporary works in the Potteru Project, the first party management had
made agreement with successful registered Labour Contractors from time to time to provide
labourers to engage them in different works, as and when necessary. The recent Work Order
No. 4230 (WE), dated the 21st October 2021, the second party workmen were engaged by the
Labour Contractors as per requirement of the work and wages were paid to them by the labour
contractors. The second party workmen were never engaged directly by the first party management
and as such there is no master and servant relationship between the first party management and
the second party workmen.
6
It further contended that in the year 2009, the second party workmen and filed W.P.(C)
No. 11828/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa claiming regularization of their service.
The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated the 7th September 2009 had disposed the writ
petition with the direction that the Chairman-cum-M.D., OHPC to take a decision on letter written
by Senior General Manager (Elec.) dated the 10th May 2002 within a period of three months from
the date of communication of the order. In compliance to the, aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High
Court, the 1st party management submits that the matter was examined by the Corporate Office
of O.H.P.C, Bhubaneswar. After taking into consideration of various aspects of the matter, the
Corporate Office vide letter dated the 13th November 2004 intimated the workmen that the Board
of Management of O.H.P.C has decided to take steps for outright sale of the Potteru Small Hydro
Project including all of its assets and liabilities after obtaining clearance from the State Govt. So
there is no scope for regularization of the second party workman. It is further submitted that, there
is no requirement of cadre structure in TNE category to be sanctioned for Potteru Small Hydro
Electric Project and till this date the cleaning, watch and ward, sanitation works for the said project
was being carried out by outsourcing agencies only.
It further contended that at the initial stage during construction of the project, the Sr. General
Manager of UKHE Project, Bariniput, the first party management has made certain correspondences
in regard to the proposal of staffing pattern required for the said ongoing project which was an
internal correspondence. Mere sending such proposal at the initial stage does not confer the right
on the second party for their absorption into regular appointment in the project, since it has been
decided to sale the said project after obtaining clearance from the State Government. The matter
is already taken up with the State Government for obtaining approval for outright sale of the Potteru
Small Hydro Electric Project, which is under process. So far as the points of discussions in the
review meeting as referred by the workmen, it is submitted that this was only the proposal submitted
by the Sr. General Manager(E1.), UKHEP, Bariniput to the Director (Operation) for discussion. The
proposal was only recorded and no decision has been taken in the matter, as at that point of time
such proposal required detailed analysis with regard to generation of electricity and its viability and
other cost factors, etc. Considering all relevant factors, it has been decided that the operation and
maintenance job of the project shall be carried out by the outsourcing agency. It further contended
that the recommendations made by the then Manager, Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project at a
time when the project was viable and now that it is no more viable and hence said recommendations
have lost its force and such recommendations do not confer any right on the 2nd party workmen,
who have been engaged through contractors, for their absorption into direct appointment in OHPC.
As there is no sanctioned posts or any requirement for recruiting any regular employee for the said
project, question of absorption of the 2nd party workmen does not arise. It further averred that in
the letter dated, the 27th December 2004 of Sr. General Manager (E1.), UKHE Project addressed
to the Director (HRD), OHPC, it is clearly reflected that the Naxals have threatened the authorities
of the project, demanding regularization of the services of the 2nd party workmen as a result of
which the other regular employees are feeling unsafe. In this connection, it is to mention here that
under threats of the Naxalites, the 2nd party workmen, engaged through contractors, cannot be
regularized by the Corporation. Process of law cannot be sacrificed under the threat of Naxalites.
It is submitted that the operational & maintenance job of the Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project
has been carried out by outsourcing agencies/contractors. It has been decided by the Corporation
for outright sale of the project “as is where is basis” subject to the approval of the Government.
The claim of the 2nd party for their absorption in regular post and appointment under the Corporation
is therefore not admissible and entertainable.
7
It further contended that the second party workmen being aggrieved, after receiving the
Letter No. 1167, dated the 23rd March 2012, that the OHPC has decided to outright sale the
project, has challenged the action of OHPC by filing W.P.(C) No. 9841/2012 before the Hon’ble
Orissa High Court and the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court till now. So far, the
advertisement published on the 19th May 2012 inviting application from the candidates fulfilling the
required eligibility criteria for selection to the post is concerned, the same has been cancelled in
the meantime. It further submitted that there is no bar on the part of OHPC for filling the vacant
post by due process of law from the candidates eligible for the posts. For filling of the vacancies,
OHPC made two numbers of advertisements in the year 2019, which are also challenged by the
second party vide W.P. (C) No. 7372/2019 and W.P. (C) No. 7482/2019. The said writ applications
are now pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa for disposal. In the said advertisement,
conditions with regard to relaxation have been given for those second party to submit their
application, if they are otherwise eligible for those posts.
The second party workmen have filed W.P. (C) No. 3402/2019 before the Hon’ble High
Court praying to issue orders for regularization of their service. The Hon’ble High Court as per
order dated the 28th March 2019 held that since the petitioners are wanted for regularization of
their service, they have to approach to the Appropriate Government under Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Hence, it averred that in pursuance to the said order, the
second party workmen ought to have approach before the appropriate government under said Act,
1970 and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present dispute. For the
above reasons, the present references are non est in the eye of law and as such this court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
It is further contended that the second party workman after having filed several cases,
approached the District Labour Officer, Malkangiri regarding non-regularization of their service in
the Potteru Project. During conciliation proceeding, the first party management has submitted its
written views by disputing the regularization of Second Party Workman on the ground that there
was no employer-employee relationship. But the DLO, Malkangiri, has submitted conciliation failure
report to the Govt. Thereafter the Labour and Employment Departments of Govt. of Odisha has
referred the present dispute to this Court for adjudication without considering the stand of the
management.
The first party management further submitted that the second party workmen have been
engaged by different Labour Contractors who have been awarded contract work of Potteru Small
Hydro Electric Project. The second party workmen were never engaged directly by the first party
management as a temporary labour like NMR, DLR etc. at any point of time. Since the second
party workmen were never engaged directly by the first party management at any point of time, the
question of regularization of their service doesn’t arise at all.
It further submitted that after construction of the project, the machine was spun on the 12th
January 2008. After several attempts, the machine could not run due to various reasons like
inadequate water availability and operational difficulty, due to higher energy cost and also for naxal
activities, the management of OHPC, felt that it is not possible to run the said power project further
and as such finally decided for outright sale of the Project “as is where is basis” subject to the
approval of State Government. In view of the above decision for outright sale of the project, it is not
required to create a regular post and recruit the employees for the particular site. The different
labour contractors have taken up the contract works by engaging their own labourers on job contract
basis. Hence the claim of second party workman for regularization is not justified. It submitted that
8
under law, in case of a contract employment, it comes to an end, at the end of the contract. If the
engagement is made on daily wage basis or casual basis, it comes to end when the engagement
is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee who worked beyond the period of employment
for how long period he had worked, they cannot be absorbed in regular post, since these employees
have got no right to the post. The first party management submitted that at no point of time the
second party workman were given assurance for absorption in regular post. Further employment
in due process of law is only recognized as a right to the post of any employee workman. But on
the ground of long length of engagement on casual basis or daily wage basis, it would not be
appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment, and to take a view that a person
who has temporarily worked for a considerable length of time, should be directed to continue the
job permanently, it will be creating another mode of public employment which is not permissible
under law. Under law, the vacant posts of any establishment is to be filled up in the process,
prescribed under rules and regulations. The posts cannot be filled up by regularization of casual
workers or daily wages and temporary employees. It further submitted that the second party
workmen have no fundamental right and also they have no legal and enforceable right to be
absorbed in regular service, since they are employed temporarily on contractual basis through
labour contractors. With the above contentions, the management has prayed that the case of the
second party workmen is devoid of any merit and needs no consideration and the reference is
liable to be rejected in the ends of justice.
3. Schedule of the Reference :–
(a) Whether the denial by the management of the Senior General Manager (Elect.), Upper
Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC, Bariniput, Dist. Koraput for regularization of service
of Shri P.K. Dwibedy and 31 other contract workmen is legal and/or justifiable?
(b) Whether claiming of regularization of service of Shri P. K. Dwibedy and 31 other contract
workmen of Potteru Electric Project, Gompakonda in the establishment of the Senior
General Manager (Elect.), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC, Bariniput,
Dist. Koraput in the regular establishment is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief they
are entitled to ?
Additional Issues–
(c) Whether the contract between 1st party management and its different labour contractors
for engagement of the present workmen as contract labourers are sham/bogus?
(d) Whether there exists any direct relationship of employer-employee between the 1st party
management and the present workmen owing to the nature of jobs, the workmen are
performing since long period of time ?
(e) Whether the case of the present workmen is falling under the provisions of Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, CLARA) and is not maintainable
before this Court under the I.D. Act, 1947 ?
4. In order to establish their case, the 2nd party workmen have examined as many as three witnesses
on their behalf and also relied on several documentary evidences. On the otherhand, the
management has examined three witness on its behalf. Apart from the oral evidences, it also
relied on several documentary evidences.
5. Learned Counsel for the workmen Shri Panigrahi submitted that the present workmen are directly
employed by the management in the year 1993 in the NMR establishment, but subsequently they
are put under the namesake contractors, only for the payment of wages, by violating the provisions
of S. 9A of I.D. Act, 1947. By putting under the namesake contractors, for long continuous period of
9
time, without regularising their service, the management has resorted to unfair labour practices as
enumerated in the I.D. Act, 1947. He further submitted that the present workmen are working in the
establishment of the management at Potteru Project, Gompakonda since 1993 as evident from
Ext. 2. He further submitted that the present workmen were working under the direct supervision
and control of the officers of management as regular employees in the perennial nature of jobs. He
further submitted that the present workmen were working in the operation and maintenance of
Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project, Gompagonda of 1st party management, which is an integral
part of the other projects of 1st party management since last 20 to 30 years continuously, although
there were change of different namesake contractors. He further submitted that even some of
them were engaged by the 1st party in the official work at its Bariniput Office. He further submitted
that identity cards were issued by the management in favour of the workmen, showing that they
are the employees of the management and not of the contractors. Without the contribution of the
present workmen, the operation of the establishment is not possible and hence an essential nature
of job, the workmen were performing. He further submitted that there were disciplinary control and
the security of the workmen bestowed on the officers of the management, but not in the hands of
the so called contractors, since they were working in the sensitive security region of the
establishment. He further submitted that the wages of the workmen were fixed by the management
and paid accordingly, which shows its financial control. He further submitted that the management
has took the attendance of workmen and managing the attendance registers. But the management
has failed to adduce any such registers, which is under its control during hearing of this case. He
further submitted that although the namesake contractors were changed, but the workmen were
the same through the years together. He further submitted that taking the importance of the works
performed by the present workmen, the management has taken steps and their names were
recommended for their absorption into regular service and to give TNE Grade salary, but the facts
best known to the management, till now they are not given their legitimate claim. Being dissatisfied
with the decision of the management for their non-regularization, the present workmen fought
several legal battles before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and finally approached before this
court after the direction of Hon’ble Court and the matter being referred by the Appropriate Govt.
There is no valid contract agreements between the management and the so called contractors
and not a single piece of documents has filed by the management to that effect before this court
for perusal. Thus he submitted that the contract between the management and the labour
contractors, if any, for engagement of contract labourers are only sham documents, in order stifle
the legitimate right of the present workmen. He further submitted that there are sufficient vacancies
in the establishment to absorb the present workmen, who are having a suitable and requisite
experience of more than 20 years. He further submitted that in similar project of management in
collaboration with APPGCL (now APGENCO) at Machhkund, five similarly placed workmen were
regularised as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC Case No. 7389 of 2000.
Even the management has also regularized the service of Dhanu Harijan, a temporary employee
in the management. But the present workmen are deprived of their legitimate rights in spite of long
unblemished service rendered to the management. So he submitted to pass necessary orders for
regularization of the present workmen. In support of his averments, he placed his reliance in the
following decisions.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union 2024 INSC 199,
Hussainbhai Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Ors. AIR 1978 (SC)
1410, General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon Vrs. Bharat Lal Reported
(2011) 1 SCC 635, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vrs. Casteribe Rajya
Parivahan Karmachari Sangathan (2009) 8 SCC 556, Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd.
Vrs. State of T.N. (2004) 3 SCC 514, National Airport Authority Vrs. Bangalore Airport Service
Coop. Society (1978) 4 SCC 257 and Bhilwara Dughd Sahakari S. Ltd. Vrs. Vinod Kumar Sharma
(dead) by LRs & Ors. AIR (2011) SC 3546.
10
6. Learned Course for the management Shri Dash has submitted that since, the workmen
are employed under the labour contractors, there is no direct relationship of employer and employee
or master and servant relationship exists between the management and the present workmen. He
further submitted that the management, being a Public Limited Company of Govt. of Odisha, is
registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is regulated by its bye-Laws and Rules. The
present Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project and all other hydro power projects are functioning
under the Govt. of Odisha. When the present project was started, the management has decided to
engage contract labour system to do certain temporary work for the functioning of its establishment.
Accordingly, contractors were appointed by issuing of work orders for engagement of labourers for
different work as and when necessary. The said contractors were engaged the present workmen
for different works in the establishment of the management. There is no direct payment of wages
to the present workmen. The contractors were paid the wages to its labourers and thereafter
receive the same from the management.The management never had any control over the present
workmen. This fact has well admitted by the witnesses of the workmen during hearing. Hence he
submitted that the law is well settled that fact admitted need not be proved as enumerated under
Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since they are contract labourers, they are not workmen
as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He further submitted that the Appropriate Govt.
has exciusive authority to abolish the contract labour system in an establishment under Section 10
of CLARA, 1970 and till date the same has not been done by the Government of Odisha. So the
question of the regularisation of the present workmen does not arise. No iota of evidence has
adduced by the workmen showing that they have approached to the Appropriate Govt. for abolition
of contract labour system in the establishment of the management. He submitted that if any violation
of the provisions of CLARA, 1970, by the management or the contractors U/s.7 or U/s.12
respectively, the inevitable consequence is the penal provisions as provided U/s. 23 and U/s. 35 of
the said Act,1970 but no automatic regularisation of the contract labourers. So far the contention
raised by the workmen that the contract is a sham and bogus and the contractors are namesake,he
submitted that throughout the filing of the statement of claim the plea of sham and bogus of the
contract has not been raised and only at the fag end of the hearing of this case, while filing rejoinder
raising such issue is not maintainable. He further submitted that law is well settled on this point
that the plea of sham and bogus of a contract must be specifically pleaded and proved adducing
cogent evidence. But here in this case, the workmen has admitted that they are the contract
labourers both in their pleadings and during evidence. So he submitted that the plea of sham and
bogus of a contract is meaningless in view of admission on the part of the workmen. Even while
raising the dispute before the Labour Machinery, the plea that the contract is sham, bogus, smoke
screen, ruse and fraudulent transaction and they be declared as the regular employee, has not
been raised. He further submitted that the decision of the Govt. is final when a dispute arise as to
the perennial nature of any work. The workmen cannot decide that the nature of work, they were
performing was perennial. No document or evidence is filed that the Govt. has declared the nature
of work, the workmen were performing is perennial. Merely the present workmen worked in the
Establishment of the management, ipso facto, cannot say that they are the employees of the
management. They are temporary labourers, employed through their respective contractors and
hence, their claim for regularization does not arise. He further submitted that there was no question
of resorting of unfair labour practice as claimed. The wages were paid to the labourers as per the
norms of the Government and there is no deviation at all. He submitted that the management as
well as the contractors are registered under the provisions of the CLARA, 1970 and the contractor
are having valid license to engage labourers in the establishment of the management and hence
this case is not maintainable under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 as referred by the Govt. and
the reference is bad in law. He submitted that the suggestion of names of the present workmen by
the management to its official head for approval, is the internal matters of the management and
this does not ground to claim regularisation of their services. He further submitted that the present
11
workmen were not directly appointed by the management against any regular vacancy and were
never issued any appointment letter for their engagement in the management. Their status was
the contract labourers under their respective contractors. He further submitted that there was no
violation of any provisions of CLARA, 1970. Thus he submitted that the claim of the workmen are
not maintainable under the reference. He further submitted that the workmen while filed their first
statement of claim, they have pleaded that they are working under different contractors and hence
contract labourers. But when they filed their amended claim and rejoinder, they pleaded that they
are directly appointed by the management. So he submitted that taking such contradictory plea,
shaken the veracity of the pleadings of the workmen and on such contradiction, reliance cannot be
placed without any evidence. In support of his submission, he placed his reliance on the following
decisions. Nagindas Ram Das Vrs. Dalpatram Ichharam AIR 1974 SC 471, Gautam Swarup Vrs.
Leela Jetly 2008 SC, S.R. Srinivasa & Ors. Vrs. S. Padmavathamma 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 286,
Dena Nath & Ors Vs. National Fertilizes Ltd. & Ors. (1992) L.L.J-1289, Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& Ors. Vrs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1357, BHEL Worker’s
Association Hardwar & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 409, Gujrat Electricity Board,
Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujar Vrs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1893, APSRTC
& Ors. Vrs. G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors. SC 2006, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vrs. Ramcharan & Ors.
SC 2022, their workmen represented by Surendra Rai, Area Secretary, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh Vrs. Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. 2020 Jharkhand HC, Mukand Ltd. Vrs. Mukund Staff and Officers Association 2004 SC,
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. Panchu Behera & Ors. 2009 (I) OLR 532, Hari Shankar Sharma &
Ors. Vrs. M/s Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corpn. & Ors. 2001 SC, Bachhaj Nahar Vrs. Nilima
Mandal & Anr. 2008 SC, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vrs. S.C. Sharma AIR 2005 SC
768, R. M. Yellati Vrs. The Assistant Executive Engineer 2005 SC, Surendranagar District Panchayat
& Anr. Vrs. Jethabhat Pitambarbhai 2005 SC, Smriti Debbarma (dead) Through LR Vrs. Prabha
Ranjan Debbarma 2023 SC, Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vrs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors 1977 AIR
448, Vegolis Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Workmen AIR 1972 SC 1942, The management of Heera Cement
Vrs. The UOI & Anr. AIR 1986 (II) OLR 416, The Heera Cement Worker’s Union Vrs. State of
Orissa 2001 (I) OLR 447, Madhusudan Behera & Ors. Vrs. District Judge, Sundargarh & Ors.
2009 (Supp.) OLR 939 Fida Hussain & Ors. Vrs. Moradabad Development Authority & Anr. 2011
SC, Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vrs. Manju Sharma 2009 SC, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vrs. K.P.
Madhavankutty & Anr. 2000 SC, Markio Tado Vrs. Takam Sorang 2013 SC, Secretary, State of
Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vrs.
Prem Heavy Engineering Work 1997 SC, Indiane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress Vrs. Indian Oil
Corporation & Ors. 1995 (II) OLR 442, Dhanjaya Sahoo & Ors. MD, Orissa Construction Corporation
Ltd. & Anr. 1997 (I) OLR 175, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2006 SC
3229, workmen, through Colliery Mazdoor Sabha Vrs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Ors.
2004 (4) LLN 252 (Cal. HC) and Paulus Oram Vrs. State of Orissa MANU/OR/0282/1999.
FINDINGS
7. The present reference is the outcome of the industrial disputes raised by the present
workmen of Potteru Kshudra Jala Bidyut Sangha, through its Secretary, demanding their
regularisation with the establishment of the management. They averred that the present 32 numbers
of workmen were engaged by the 1st party management directly for working in the Potteru Small
Hydro Power Project at Gompakonda and also they were working in the establishment of
management at Bariniput in different posts throughout the year. Therefore, they are the workers,
working in a perennial nature of work and hence entitled to be absorbed into the regular roll of the
management. But the management has shown them as contract labourers by paying their wages.
It further contended that the introduction of contract labour system is against the Rules of the
12
establishment and the contractors were namesake and the contract if any, is bogus and sham,
only to deprive the legitimate claim of the present workmen. The management averred that they
were working in the project site not directly, but through their contractors and hence they are not
the employees of the management and they are the labourers of their respective contractors. It
was further averred that the present persons (workmen) so worked not throughout the year but as
and when required. It further contended that they are receiving their wages from their contractors
and there is no relationship of servant-master or employees-employer existed between them.
8. ln this backdrop of averments, first I have to advert to discuss issue No. (d), which is crucial
for determining the status of the present workmen as to whether they are the labourers of the
contractors, employed by the management or they are the employees of the management as
principal employer, directly appointed by it ? Fact reveals that the present workmen are the labourers
engaged by different labour contractors appointed by the management for the purpose of certain
works to be carried out at project site of Potteru Small Hydro Power Project, Gompakonda. However,
the workmen contended that they were directly appointed by the management as NMR/DLR and
worked for more than 20 to 27 years. Learned counsel for the workmen relying on Ext.2 submitted
that the present workmen are working as NMR/DLR, as reveals from the letter of correspondence
written by the Executive Engineer, Potteru Electrical Division, Kalimela to the Superintending
Engineer, (Elect.), Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Circle, Bariniput on its reference Letter No. 1922-27
dated the 16th June 1997 for their regularization. In the said corresponding letter a list of workers
is attached for the consideration of their absorption in regular establishment. The names of the
present workmen are also found mentioned there in item No. 3. It further found that item No. 3 is
related to the contract labourers. However, in the list of names in the last column, it is mentioned
that they are working as NMR, against each name. So basing on the said fact, learned counsel
submitted that the present workmen are working as NMR/DLR. Except this fact no other supportive
document is filed to buttress the said claim. On perusal of Ext. 2, it appears to this court that
learned counsel has completely ignored the content and its meaning of item No. 3 of Ext. 2. The
item No. 3 of Ext. 2 clearly meant for contract labourers. It further proves that the present workmen
are the contract labourers. Merely in remarks column, it is mentioned that they are working as
NMR, without any supportive document, cannot come to the conclusion that they are the NMR
employees of the management. Moreover, during evidence the workman examined as W. W. 1
categorically admitted in Para. 101 of his cross-examination that no appointment letter was issued
to them by the management. He further admitted that they were working under different contractors
since more than 20 years and lastly under the contractor M/s Daitari Sia. He further admitted that
the contractors were paying their wages. But on his recall he deposed contradictory statements
and stated that he was appointed by one P. K. Das, Manager, OHPC. He further stated that in the
similar footings other workmen were also appointed by other officers of OHPC as per their needs.
Law is well settled that a statement given by a witness during evidence, either in examination-in-
chief or in cross-examination, cannot be withdrawn on recall in order to suit their stand taken
thereafter. If such withdrawn is made during recall of a witness, reliance cannot be placed on such
contradictory and retracted statement. W.W.1during his cross-examination has clearly deposed
that no appointment letter was issued by the management and they were working under the different
labour contractors since long and lastly under Daitari Sia and received their wages through the
labour contractors. But on his recall on the 8th November 2023 he stated that he was appointed by
one P. K. Das, Manager, OHPC. This development was first appeared when the present workmen
have filed their subsequent rejoinder after filing of amended show cause by the management. But
in support of said plea, no document has filed by the workmen although W.W.1 has stated during
his cross-examination in Para.126. Moreover, on perusal of the documents filed by the workmen
marked Exts. 2, 9, 10, 17, 18 and many other documents relied on by both the parties, it is found
that the present workmen are the contract labourers. The workmen also in their representations
13
vide Exts. 9 and 26 admitted that they are the contract labourers by putting their individual signatures.
Even in their writ petitions filed before the Hon’ble Court in several writ cases, they also averred
that they are contract labourers. The workmen also relied on the document marked as Ext. 64.
The said document is the list of labour contractors engaged by the management since 1993 in
PSHEP. A list also attached with the said Ext. 64, where it is mentioned that the present workmen
are working under the said contractors. It is further found from the evidence of the workmen witness
No. 2 &3 that they were working under different labour contractors. W. W. No. 2 in Para. 37 of his
statement during cross-examination has stated that they all are employed under the labour
contractors. Similarly, W.W. No. 3 in Para. 37 of his statement during cross-examination has also
stated that all 32 workmen are employed under the labour contractors. He further stated that he
was working since 1998. On perusal of Ext. 64, and other relevant documents relied on by both the
parties, and moreover on the admission by the workmen during evidence, there remains no doubt
that the present workmen are the contract labourers working under different labour contractors
engaged by the principal employer, the management. Since the present workmen are the contract
labourers, working under different labour contractors, it can safely be concluded that there is no
employer-employee relation exists between the management and present workmen. Merely the
workmen are working since a petty long period of time, does not ipso facto, change their character
as. direct employee of the management. Law is well settled in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.
Vrs. Ramcharn (supra), where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that;
“4. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the material
on record, it appears that the contesting respondents herein were the contractual labourers of the
respondent No. 7 - contractor, who was a contractor engaged by the appellant in terms of the
contract dated the 22nd April 1995, which was renewed from time to time. It is an admitted position
in the present case that no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act has been issued by the
State Government / appropriate Government, prohibiting the contract labour. It also appears that
upon entering into the contract, necessary compliance under the CLRA Act was also completed
by the appellant and the respondent No. 7 - contractor. On the labour contract coming to an end,
the services of the contesting respondents were dispensed with by the contractor.
4.1 On going through the entire material on record, no documentary evidence was produced,
by which it can be said that the contesting respondents were the employees of the appellant.
There is no provision under Section 10 of the CLRA Act that the workers/employees employed by
the contractor automatically become the employees of the appellant and/or the employees of the
contractor shall be entitled for automatic absorption and/or they become the employees of the
principal employer. It is to be noted that even the direct control and supervision of the contesting
respondents was always with the contractor. There is no evidence on record that any of the
respondents were given any benefits, uniform or punching cards by the appellant.
4.2 Under the contract and even under the provisions of the CLRA, a duty was cast upon
the appellant to pay all statutory dues, including salary of the workmen, payment of PF contribution,
and in case of non-payment of the same by the contractor, after making such payment, the same
can be deducted from the contractor’s bill. Therefore, merely because sometimes the payment of
salary was made and/or PF contribution was paid by the appellant, which was due to non-payment
of the same by the contractor, the contesting respondents shall not automatically become the
employees of the principal employer - appellant herein.
4.3 Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, in the absence of a notification under Section
10 of the CLRA Act, 1970 unless there are allegations or findings with regard to a contract being
sham, private respondents herein, who are as such the workmen/employee of the contractor,
cannot be held to be employees of the appellant and not of the contractor.”
14
9. The next question, which also important for the present dispute in question, i.e. the
nature of the contract between the management and different labour contractors as framed in
Issue No. (c). Learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that the contract between the
management and different labour contractors are sham, bogus, camouflage and smoke screen,
which is meant for deprivation of the legitimate claims of the present workmen. Learned counsel
for the management has submitted that the present workmen have never taken the plea that the
contracts between the management and different labour contractors are sham or camouflage or
smoke screen, either before the labour machinery, when they raised the present dispute, or before
this court while filed their statement of claim. He submitted that while filed their subsequent rejoinder,
after filling of the amended show cause by the management and after examination of one witness
as W.W.1 on their behalf, the workmen, to the surprise of the management took the plea of sham
or bogus of the contract, only to patch up the, lacunae. He further submitted that no supportive
averments are made, as to how the contracts are sham or bogus. Thus he submitted that evidence,
in absence of the pleadings, that to the same was taken while filing the rejoinder, has no meaning
at all. He further submitted that in view of admission made by the workmen, that they are contract
labourers and worked under the different labour contractors, disputing the contract itself as sham
or bogus, is appears to be self- contradictory. Merely saying or taken a vague plea that the contracts
are sham or bogus, does not ipso facto make the relationship between the management and
labour contractors, changed. In support of his submission, he placed his reliance on the decision
of Bachhaj Nahar (supra), where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para. 10 as follows;
“10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be
decided by the, courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary
to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the 7 plaint, the court
cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an
appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and
contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot,
on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The
question before a Court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief
can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no
opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the Court could not be granted. When there is no
prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no
opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the Court considers and grants such a relief, it will
lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put
forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.”
Learned counsel on the other hand, has submitted that the plea of sham or bogus of the
contract between the management and contractors, although has not taken while filing the claim
statement but while filed their subsequent rejoinder, the workmen have in clear terms pleaded this
fact. He further submitted that in their claim statement, they clearly pleaded that they were put
under the ‘name sake contractors’ which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise ‘of power’
in Para.13, which is otherwise challenging the position of labour contractors as smokescreen. So
the contention of the management that there is no pleading regarding the question of sham or
bogus of the contract, has no force at all. Further, Rule 10B (1) of Orissa Industrial Disputes
Rules, 1959 prescribes the procedures for filing of the statement of claim by the workmen, who
raises the industrial dispute. sub-rule 2 prescribes for filing of the written statement by the opposite
party. Again sub-rule 4 prescribes for filing of rejoinder by the party raising the dispute to the averments
of written statement. So on perusal of these Rules, it can be concluded that the rejoinder filed by
the present workmen to the response of written statement of the management, forms part of the
statement of claim. On perusal of subsequent rejoinder filled on the 9th March 2023, in Para. 8, it
is clearly averred that the contract itself was sham and bogus. So the contention of the learned
15
counsel for the management that there is no pleading, whereby the workmen challenged the nature
of contract is sham or bogus, is not acceptable. But in other aspects, like how the contracts are
sham or bogus, whether there were proper execution of those contract as per law, whether the
present workmen were engaged by the successive contractors on each time of fresh execution of
contracts, whether they were paid the wages by the management during gap periods, i.e when the
period of contract was came to end and the execution of new contract, what was the status of the
present workmen when there was no contractor at all, the claim statement completely silent about
it. Further while raising the dispute before the Labour Authorities, no such plea was taken regarding
the nature of the contracts, as evident from Ext. 46. Even the Conciliation failure report submitted
vide Ext. 65 is also silent about it, which are vital aspects for determination of the nature of contracts
executed between the management and different labour contractors. So contention raised by the
counsel for the management has some force in this aspects. As discussed in Para. 8 of this
judgment that the workmen have admitted that they are the contract labourers. Even they admitted
in Para. 10 of their subsequent rejoinder that there were publication of tenders on each year for
engagement of labour contractors, which shows that the workmen have knowledge about the
process of awarding tenders in fovour of labour contractors. But they remained silent and
acquiesced with the decision of the management.
Next come to the moot question relating to the fact that how far the workmen have successful
to establish the fact or question of nature of contract as sham or bogus by adducing cogent and
corroborative evidence. The plea of the workmen that they were put under the name sake
contractors, who are only the paying agencies, by the management while working at Potteru Project.
They further pleaded that they were performed the perennial nature of work for petty long period of
time for more than 20 years. Even though they were working as contract labourers, but the real
control and supervision were with the officers of the management as evident from several
documentary evidences marked as Exts. 19, 22, issuance of experience certificates vide Ext. 18,
23 & 72, deployment of workmen in other works as evident from Exts. 42 & 73 and issuance of
identity cards in favour of workmen by the management, vide Exts. 70 and 74 series. So far Exts
19 and 22 are concerned, the same is the arrangements for the deployment of staffs under the
management and the same are prepared by the officers of the management. So the workmen are
contended that the arrangement made by the officers of the management shows that although
they were contract labourers engaged by contractors but were under direct control and supervision
of the officers of the management. In this aspect they placed the reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon
(supra), on which learned counsel for the workmen has also placed his reliance, where it held in
Para. 9 that;
“9. On a careful consideration, we are of the view that the Industrial Court committed a
serious error in arriving at those findings. In regard to the first test as to who pays the salary, it
placed the onus wrongly upon the appellant. It is for the employee to aver and prove that he was
paid salary directly by the principal employer and not the contractor. The first respondent did not
discharge this onus. Even in regard to second test, the employee did not establish that he was
working under the direct control and supervision of the principal employer. The Industrial Court
misconstrued the meaning of the terms ‘control and supervision’ and held that as the officers of
appellant were giving some instructions to the first respondent working as a guard, he was deemed
to be working under the control and supervision of the appellant. The expression ‘control and
supervision’ in the context of contract labour was explained by this Court in International Airport
Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union 2009 (13) SCC 374 thus:
“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will
work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not
16
make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, If the salary is paid by contractor, If
the right to regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control
lies with the contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a
contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as
employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or
used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision
and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he
will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to
work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the
principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.”
Therefore we are of the view that the Industrial Court ought to have held that first respondent
was not a direct employee of the appellant, and rejected the application of the first respondent.”
They further contended that Ext. 42 shows that one of the present workmen was working
as clerk in the Project High School, Bariniput, which is under the control of the management. On
perusal of the said Ext. 42, it is found that the same was a photocopy and in manuscript form. The
original has not been produced. No step was taken for its production. The person issued the same
has not been examined in order to prove the same, Similar the situation in case of Ext.73,.which is
the photocopy of vehicle log book. Hence the same are not reliable. So far the relevancy of experience
certificates marked as Exts. 18, 23 and 72, are concerned, the same are issued to the person
concerned for their better perspective in life at somewhere else and on the said basis, it cannot be
said that the control and supervision of the workmen were under the management. Similarly, the
identity cards marked in Ext. 70 and. Ext. 74 series, the same were issued, by the officers of the
management under special circumstances as found from Ext. 15. It reveals that due to threat of
naxalites, issuance of identity cards were felt imperative. This fact has also admitted by W.W.1 in
Para. 136 in his evidence. So on the basis of issuance of identity cards, it cannot be said that they
are the employes of the management. Further, W. W.1 has also admitted that in all the identity
cards, the present workmen have shown as ‘contract labourers’.
Lets come back to the crux of the issue. Fact reveals that the management has floated tenders
for appointment of labour contractors as evident from Ext.1. Similarly, the workmen have clearly
admitted this fact in their rejoinder. The workmen have also filed the list of labour contractors, who
were engaged by the management since the inception of the project which is marked as Ext. 64.
It reveals the details of the names of respective labour contractors and the period of their
engagement. Further the management has filed the tax invoices of different labour contractors,
through which the management has paid the wages of the present workmen, marked Exts. K, L,
Q, & R. It also filed the tender papers executed between the management and labour contractors
marked as Ext. A & B. All these documents and the evidences, shows that the contracts between
the management and the labour contractors are genuine. So the averments of the workmen that
the contracts are sham and bogus cannot be accepted.
10. To answer the Issue No.(e), i.e whether the case of the present workmen is falling
under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, CLARA) and
is not maintainable before this Court under the I.D. Act, 1947 ? Learned counsel for the management
has submitted that the case of the workmen is not maintainable before this court under the provisions
of I.D. Act, 1947. He further submitted that the case is falling under the purview of the provisions of
CLARA, 1970.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Water Front.
(supra) has held that;
“An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes; (i) where
contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment
17
of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of
contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act, 1970, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment
was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be sham and nominal rather a camouflage in
which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer was held, in
fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not
relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and
declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood
prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining canteen in an establishment
the principal employer availed the services of a contractor and the courts have held that the contract
labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.”
Learned counsel for the workmen after relying on the decision of Baraiya Vallabhbhai
Odhavjibhai (supra) has submitted that the case of the workmen is maintainable under the provision
of I.D. Act, 1947 before this court. The. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the aforesaid case of Baraiya
Vallabhbhai Odhavjibhai (supra) in Para. 5 & 8 has held as under;
“5. Before that, this Court has observed the law which is relating to the question raised
before this Court in case of Food Corporation of India Workers’ Union 2001 1 GLH 90.(Supra), this
Court has observed, in Para.14, as under:
I have considered the submissions of all the learned advocates. The question is that yet no
notification has been issued by the appropriate Government prohibiting labour contract in the field
of the FCI at Gandhidham Depot and that the respondent No. 6 is having legal and valid license of
engaging contract labour. These are the facts which are not in dispute between the parties. Rest of
the averments are in dispute between the parties. The prayers of the petitioner union either to
abolish the contract system or to direct the respondent corporation to absorb the members of the
petitioner union as a regular employee in such a situation cannot be entertained by this Court
because all these are the disputed questions of fact. In such a situation, the petitioner union can
raise industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the contract
labour system is camouflage, sham and bogus. It is also open for the petitioner union to approach
the machinery under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) . Act, 1970
with a prayer to issue notification for prohibiting labour contract system at Gandhidham. According
to me, the petitioner union can simultaneously approach the machineries under both the legislations
namely Industrial Disputes Act as well as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Similar situation has arisen in past before this Court in case of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat
v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (2) LLJ 486. In Paragraph 29 and 30 of the decision, division
bench of this Court has held as under :
It, therefore, becomes clear that the references for declaration that workmen are direct
employees of the principal employer and the intermediary contractor is a camouflage will have to
be adjudicated upon on their own merits under the ID Act and they operate in their, own field, viz. in
the personal field i.e. personal relation between the workmen on the one hand and the principal
employer on the other, while references for abolition of contract labour system under Section 10 of
the Act would operate in their own field and they touch upon the industrial activities themselves,
their nature and upon the question whether such activities can be allowed to be subject to contract
labour system or not. Thus, former references investigate upon and cover personal relationship
between the contesting parties while the latter references deal with objective aspects of industrial
activities as such. These two types of references operate in different fields and they do not overlap
nor do they intermix and both these types of references can be considered on their own merits
under the respective Acts by the respective appropriate authorities.
18
8. In view of the above observations made by this Court, confirmed upto Apex Court and
considering the facts of the present case which are almost same and similar that all the petitioners
are working with labour contractor for more than 10 to 15 years and some of them are working for
more than 2 to 3 years in different spell with different contractors, the question is that, whether
petitioners are entitled the protection while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India during the pendency of industrial dispute which has been raised by petitioners through
Union. This aspect, in detailed, discussed by this Court in case of Food Corporation of India
Workers’ Union (supra). Therefore, according to my opinion, relying the earlier decision as referred
above in case of Food Corporation of India Workers’ Union (supra), It is directed to the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour (Central) to initiate the proceedings in respect to dispute raised by Gujarat
Rajya Shramjivi Karmachari Union by letter dated the 1st July 2006 and pass appropriate orders
after giving reasonable opportunity to the respective parties under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act, 1947
within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the copy of this order. It is further directed to
the appropriate Government Labour Department (Central) to take decision on report received from
Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) under Section 12(5) of I.D. Act, 1947 within a period
of one month from the date of receiving the said report under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act, 1947 from
the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.”
In view of the settled position of law, the case is maintainable before this court, since the
workmen have raised the question of nature of the contract between the management and the
Labour Contractors as sham and bogus. The further contention raised by the management that
the Court cannot travel beyond the reference and the Court has to decide the matter within four
corners of the reference made by the appropriate Govt. It further submitted that additional issues
framed by the Court are not within the purview of this Court. On this point learned counsel for the
management has placed his reliance on the cases of their Workmen Represented by Surendra
Rai, Area Secretary, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh Vrs. Employer in Relation to the management
of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2020 Jharkhand HC, Mukand Ltd. Vrs. Mukund
Staff and Officers Association 2004 SC and our own Hon’ble High Court in the case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. Panchu Behera & Ors. 2009 (I) OLR 532.
In the case of Mukand Ltd. Vrs. Mukund Staff and Officers Association (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as under;
“We shall now analyse the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing on
either side with reference to the pleadings, documents, records and also with reference to the
judgments cited.
The reference is limited to the dispute between the Appellant- Company and the ‘workmen’
employed by them.
We have already referred to the order of Reference dated the 17th February 1993 in
paragraph supra. The dispute referred to by the order of Reference is only in respect of workmen
employed by the appellant-Company. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal, being a creature of the
Reference, cannot adjudicate matters not within the purview of the dispute actually referred to it by
the order of Reference. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the Tribunal could not
have adjudicated the issues of the salaries of the employees who are not workmen under the Act
nor could it have covered such employees by its award. Even assuming, without admitting, that
the Reference covered the non-workmen, the Tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction under the Act,
could not have adjudicated the dispute insofar as it related to the ‘non- workmen’.”
19
Law is well settled that the industrial adjudicators have to exercise their jurisdiction within
the four corners of the reference made to it by the appropriate Govt. I have carefully gone through
the facts and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts and the facts and
circumstances of this case is quite distinguishable from the cases refereed above. So the ratio
decided in the said cases in my humble consideration are not applicable to the present case in
hand. Clause 4 of S. 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 reads as follows;
“Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the
points of dispute for adjudication, the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the
case may be, shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.”
While framing additional issues, this Court carefully gone through the aforesaid provision
of the I.D. Act, 1947. The additional issues, so framed are incidental to the reference made by the
appropriate Govt. and required for proper and just decision of the case, basing on the pleadings of
both the parties. So there is no deviation of settled legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court and different High Courts. Further, on perusal of case record, it is found that the management
has filed an amendment petition seeking to amend the show cause, which was allowed vide order
dated the 20th January 2023. After filing of amended show cause, the workmen have filed their
rejoinder. Then the management and the workmen have filed their draft issues, praying therein to
add further draft issues for just disposal of the case. Accordingly, the court framed the additional
issues basing on the pleadings of both the parties. The management has never challenged the
said order whereby additional issues are framed. Moreover the management has also filed petition
for drafting of additional issues. So the submission raised by learned counsel for the management
has no force for the reasons stated above, that to at the time of argument.
11. Next come to the Issue No.(a) whether the denial by the management of the Senior
General Manager (Elect.), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC, Bariniput, Dist. Koraput
for regularization of service of Shri P. K. Dwibedy and 31 other contract workmen is legal and/or
justifiable? Fact admitted that the 1st party management is under the Odisha Hydro Power
Corporation Ltd. (O.H.P.C), which is a Public Limited Company of Govt. of Odisha, registered
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Upper Kolab Hydro Electric Project (UKHE Project)
and Potteru Small Hydro Electric Project (Potteru Project) are under the control of the management.
In order to undertake temporary works in the Potteru Project, the management had made agreement
with successful registered Labour Contractors from time to time to provide labourers to engage
them in different works as and when necessary as evident from Ext.1. The recent work Order
No. 4230 (WE), dated the 21st October 2021, the second party workman were engaged by the
Labour Contractors as per requirement of the work and wages were paid to them by the labour
contractors as per the norms of the Govt. of Odisha. It is also admitted fact that the workmen are
engaged as unskilled labourers as evident from Ext.2 and other documents relied on by the
workmen, except some of the workmen. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the
management has assured the workmen for their absorption into regular roll but inspite of serving a
petty long period of time, with utmost satisfaction, they are deprived of their legitimate claims. He
further submitted that though labour contractors are changed, the workmen are the same from the
inception of the project till today they are working under the management at different places of the
management. He submitted that by non-regularizing the workmen after serving for a long period,
the management has resorted to unfair labour practice. Learned Counsel for the management
has submitted that the workmen have never assured for regularization of their service. Moreover,
20
from the very begining they, with all information and own volition worked for the management as
contract labourers. He further submitted that since the present workmen are contract labourers,
their service conditions are guided under the provision of CLARA, 1970 and they are fully aware
about this fact. The question of their regularization come to foreplay, only when the Appropriate
Govt. abolish the system of contract labour from the management under Section 10 of the said
Act, 1970 by publishing the notification. He submitted that the fact admitted that the workmen
never approached before the Govt. for abolition of the same. He submitted that the letters and
correspondences between the different offices of the management, admitted in evidence by the
workmen, were internal affairs of the management. He submitted that the management never
resorted to unfair labour practices, by engaging the workmen for years together under different
contractors. He submitted that the nature of service of the workmen are fully within their knowledge
and knowing the same that they are contract labourers, agreed to work in the establishment of the
management. By doing or allowing the same for the workmen to work in its establishment, had
provided the jobs for their betterment. He placed his reliance in the decision of Indian Bottling Plant
Sramika Congress Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. (supra). The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in
the said case in Para. 5 has held as under;
“5. Patiently we have heard Mr. S. Mohapatra and Mr. D. Rath, learned Advocates for the
respective parties. Our attention has been drawn to a latest decision of the Apex Court, reported in
1994 3 Supreme Court Cases, 303 S.K. Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors.,
particularly to paragraphs, 5, 6 and 7. The entire facts and the ratio of the decision have been
incorporated. It has been found by the Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms that between the
principal employer and the employees of the contractors, there is no relationship. In an appropriate
case the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the I.D. Act should consider the several
factors for abolition of the contract labourers in the industry concerned. Neither the Act nor Rules
framed by the Central Govt. or by the appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of the
contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer. From the said
decision, it is clear that the doubts have been set at rest that it is not for the Court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or
other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
Government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. The Apex
Court further held that with the passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of
workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the
contractor of the new contract retain the old employees. In fact, such a condition is incorporated in
the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the
contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself
give rise to a right to regularisation in the employment of the principal employer. This aspect of the
case should not be considered wither by the High Court or by the Supreme Court under Article 136
as it is not possible for the High Court or the Supreme Court while exercising writ jurisdiction to
decide such questions, only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point
of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer,
eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the Court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial
Disputes Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them. True it is Mr. Mohapatra has drawn our attention
that in the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court made certain directions. Abnormal cases
always require abnormal prescription. In the said case the Supreme Court made certain directions
taking note of the development of the matter. From the ratio of that decision, it is clear that the
21
grievance as canvassed before us by filing repeated writ applications as noted above, cannot be
effectively decided by the writ Court and the writ petition as opposed is not maintainable.
Mr. Mohapatra has further submitted that the main grievance refers to the employment inasmuch
as some of the employees of the contractors if found eligible cannot ask for consideration while
the permanent posts are being filled up by the principal employer. This last aspect is not covered
by the facts in the petition nor is there any prayer. We hold that the concept of the provisions of law
to seek the reliefs for regularisation of the employment by the principal worker is uncalled for and
the petition as filed is not maintainable. As to the other question for direction to the Central
Government to take steps under Section 10 of the Act or reliefs to the employees of the contract
employers against the principal employer the same be considered in appropriate cases if the
grievances are made.”
So relying the ratio decided on the aforesaid decision, it appears to this Court that the
contention of unfair labour practice resorted by the management, as raised by the workmen has
no force at all. Moreover, the workmen are fully aware of the nature of job, as admitted by them but
still continuing in their job. Even when the workmen were given the opportunity to appear in the
examination in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Court, none have qualified for the same.
As discussed in Para. 8 & 9 of this award, the workmen are the contract labourers and the system
of contract labour is in vogue in the establishment of the management. Unless, the said system
was abolished by complying the provision of CLARA, 1970, the management has no scope to
regularize the job of the present workmen. So the denial of the management to regularize the job
of the workmen is not illegal.
12. The next reference is whether claiming of regularization of service of Shri P. K. Dwibedy
and 31 other contract workmen of Potteru Electric Project, Gopakonda in the establishment of the
Senior General Manager (Elect.), Upper Kolab Hydro Electrical Project, OHPC, Bariniput, Dist-
Koraput in the regular establishment is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?
The workmen has demanded their regularization into the establishment of the management. Fact
reveals that the Potteru Project is no more in operation since 2008 as admitted by W. W.1 in
Para.106 of his evidence. This fact also found corroboration from the evidence of W.W.2 & 3
durning their evidence. Even the management has decided to sell the said project and the proposal
is waiting for approval from the Govt. The present workmen had approached before the Hon’ble
Court by filing the writ petition against the decision of the management to sell the project, where
the Hon’ble Court has stayed the process, which is still pending for its final disposal. The witnesses
of the workmen have categorically admitted that they are working under the present contractor
M/s Daitari Sia, who is paying their wages. So from the admission of the workmen, the status of
the present workmen is still contract labourers. W.W.1 in Para. 111 of his evidence has admitted
that they have not filed any application or petition before any forum for abolition of system of contract
labour from the establishment of the management. Even he admitted in Para. 151 that they have
not filed any document showing that the Service Rules as applicable to the regular employees of
the management, is also applicable to them. Even fact reveals that when in compliance of the
direction of the Hon’ble Court, the workmen were given the chance to participate in the recruitment
process by relaxing the age limit, it was found that except W.W.1, no one has requisite qualifications.
It is further evident from Ext. V that said W.W.1, had failed to qualify the computer based test
conducted by the management for absorption of said workman into regular roll. So in such
circumstances, the demand of the workmen for their regularization into the establishment of the
management is not tenable under law.
22
13. The next contention of the workmen that they are working in the perennial nature of jobs, even
though the labour contractors are changed from time to time, they are continued to work under the
management since long. It was further pleaded that the nature of jobs, they are discharged at
different places of the management was satisfactory as reveals from the report of the officers of
the management as evident from Ext.11. They further submitted that they are working in the
construction of Potteru Project for years together and have gained vast experience in the said
works as found from the report of Manager (EI.) I/C, Potteru Electrical Division, Kalimela vide its
Letter No. 26, dated the 1st October 2001, marked as Ext.8. Learned counsel for the workmen has
submitted that the present workmen are performing the duties of ward and watch, sanitation,
upkeeping and even running of drainage pumps etc. in the establishment of the management as
stated by M.W. 2 & 3. He submitted that, the works are perennial in nature and the workmen are
working the same since long and they have accrued a right to be absorbed into the regular roll of
the management. In support of his submission, he placed his reliance on the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (supra). In the said case the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Para. 22 has held that:
“22. The above referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has
come to a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As
stated previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant.
However, as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting
the appeals.
What we have referred to hereinabove are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by
the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing
nature of work, continuous working of the workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in
the appeals filed by the appellant.”
The fact of the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (supra) is completely different from the present
case. In the said case there was a settlement between the management and contract labourers
based on the provisions of Clauses 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV
dated the 27th July 1989. Under these clauses, it was agreed that the employer shall not engage
contract labour with respect to jobs which are permanent and perennial in nature. They also provide
that such jobs shall be executed through regular employees.Here in this case no such agreement
was executed by the Authority for work in the establishment of the management. Section 10 (2) (b)
of the CLARA, 1970 speaks of the term ‘perennial’ in nature. The said S. 10 of the Act, 1970 reads
as follows;
10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this, Act, the appropriate Government may, after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification
in the official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment,
the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as–
(a) Whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the
industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the
establishment·
23
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard
to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that
establishment;
(c) Whether it is done ordinarily through, regular workmen in that establishment or an
establishment similar thereto;
(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen.
Explanation.–If, a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial
nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.
The explanation to the Section 10 (2) (b) of the Act, 1970 provides that in order to decide
whether a job is of perennial nature or not, the decision of the appropriate Govt. is required. Here
in this case no such document or material is produced by the workmen showing that the appropriate
Govt. has declared the nature of work performed by them are ‘perennial’ in nature.
Merely the work was carried out for petty long period, ipso facto not qualified the term ‘perennial’ in
nature.
14. The plea of the workmen that they are working in the establishment of the management
for petty long period of time. They further contended that some of them have completed more than
25 years of job as contract labourers since 1993. They further averred that although the name
sake contractors were changed, the workmen are the same and they rendered unblemished service
to the management from the construction of the project till its stage commissioning and they still
working at different projects of the management. Even some of the workmen are working at the
office of the management at Bariniput. Hence they claimed that they accrued a right to be regularized
in view of their long term work with the management.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane & Ors.
Vrs. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors. (2022) 11 SC CK 0064, in Para. 6.2 has held as under;
“6.2 Merely because respondent No.1 continued in service for longer period on contractual
basis the High Court ought not to have passed the order of regularization more particularly, when
a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the agency/contractor and that the
appointment of respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any
selection procedure. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was purely on stopgap and on contractual
basis. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering
regularization as well as quashing and setting aside order dated the 15th July 2021 by which on the
contract being awarded to M/s Rakshak Security Services and Systems Pvt. Ltd., the services of
respondent No. 1 was put to an end.”
Similar view has expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent case of Ganesh
Digamber Jambhrunkar& Ors. Vrs.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC), 801. The
Hon’ble Court has held as under;
“The issue with which we are concerned in this petition is as to whether by working for a
long period of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have acquired any vested legal right to be
appointed in the respective posts on regular basis. We appreciate the argument of the petitioners
that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do
not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the
event there was any scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but
in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have
24
applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected
their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We
do not think any different view can be taken.”
So in view of settled principles of law, the claim of regularization by the workmen on the
basis of their long service to the management, not sustainable in law.
15. The next contention of the workmen that one Dhanu Harijan, a temporary employee, working
with the management was regularized but in case of the present workmen have deprived their
claims. They further submitted that the management in collaboration of APPGCL (now APGENCO),
in their joint project at Machhkund, had regularized five similarly placed workmen as evident from
Ext.69, but in their case, the management has taken callousness stand. During cross-examination,
W.W.1 has failed to say the names of those five persons, who were regularized by the management
and their working background. On perusal of Ext. 69, it is found that five persons, were given
temporary appointments by the APGENCO, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of
Orissa in OJC No. 7389/2000. When the workmen have contended that five similarly situated
workmen have been given permanent status, but no document has filed to support the said claim.
Moreover, the document vide Ext. 69 reveals they were given temporary jobs under permanent roll.
The case of those five persons are not similar as claimed by the workmen. They were given job by
APGENCO on the direction of the Hon’ble Court. Similarly in the case of Dhanu Harijan, no document
or material placed by the workmen to prove that he was absorbed in the regular roll of the
management. However, Ext. 2 find the name of Dhanu Harijan in Column No. 2, recommended for
regularisation, there is no material or evidence to prove that the said recommendation was accepted
and he was taken to regular establishment of the management. So in view of the above discussion,
the contention as raised by the workmen that others were regularized but they were deprived of
their rights, has no legs to stand.
16. Learned Counsel for the Workmen has submitted that the ‘economic control’ of the present
workmen is with the principal employer, the management in the present case, even though the
workmen are the labourers of the name sake contractors. He further submitted that the workmen
are working under the control and supervision of the officers of management which evident from
several documents, as relied on by the workmen. He contended that the workmen are engaged
for the production of given result for the principal employer. The role of those dubious contractors
are shadow on the relationship of the workmen and the management. He submitted that the workmen
are the employees of the principal employer in real terms by lifting the veil of the system of contract
labour. In support of his submission he placed his reliance in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut.
(Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case in Para. 5&6 has held as under;
“The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker group of workers
labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another,
that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill
and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The
presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have have immediate or direct
relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus
of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect
paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor.
Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment
needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when labour
legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and
43- A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid mischief and achieve the purpose of
the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances.
25
If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods
and services for the benefits and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or
the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the
management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity.
The liability cannot be shaken off.”
On carefully consideration of the ratio of the said case, this court, in its humble submission,
found that the fact and situation genesis of the said case is quite distinguishable from the present
case. The said case was of the origin when there was no enactment of the CLARA, 1970. But here
in this case the labour contractors are registered and having license under the said Act, 1970. Fact
admitted that the workmen are the contract labourers and was engaged by different contractors.
So taking benefit of the ratio in the said case, the situation and position of the workmen cannot be
changed. Hence the submission of the learned counsel for the workmen has no effect at all in view
of the fact and circumstances of the present case.
17. Learned counsel for the workmen then placed his reliance on the ratio decided in
Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. (Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid case in
Para. 4&5 has held as under;
“In order to avoid their liability under various labour statutes employers are very often resorting
to subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are, in fact, the employees of a contractor. It is
high time that this subterfuge must come to an end. Labour statutes were meant to protect the
employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an
equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be
exploited.
However, this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent
years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the
concerned workmen are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor, or
that they are merely daily wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the
work of regular employees.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Water
Front...(supra) has held that;
An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes; (i) where
contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment
of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of
contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was
ordered; (ii) where the contract was found, to be sham and nominal rather a camouflage in which
case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer was held, in fact
and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to
abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared
the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited;
(iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining canteen in an establishment the
principal employer availed the services of a contractor and the courts have held that the contract
labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
In a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hussain bhai’s case (supra), the petitioner
who was manufacturing ropes entrusted the work to the contractors who engaged their own workers.
26
When, after some time, the workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute that they
were denied employment. On reference of that dispute by the State Government, they succeeded
in obtaining an award against the petitioner who unsuccessfully challenged the same in the High
Court and then in the Supreme Court. On examining various factors and applying the effective
control test, this court held that though there was no direct relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent yet on lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment,
the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, was that the real employer
was the management not the immediate contractor. Speaking for the Court, Justice Krishna Iyer
observed thus:- Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree
of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to
when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38,39,42,43,
and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the
purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances....... Of course, if there is
total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the
employment is, in substance and in real-life terms, by another. The managements adventitious
connections cannot ripen into real employment. This case falls in Class (ii) mentioned above.
It was further held that;
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting
employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract
labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce
any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial
legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not
genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees
of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in
the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in
the light of Para. 6 hereunder.
The Hon’ble Court further discuss the ratio decided in the case of Basti Sugar Mills case
(supra) in the following terms;
The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Basti Sugar Mills case (supra) was
given in the context of reference of an industrial dispute under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The appellant Sugar Mills entrusted the work of removal of press mud to a contractor
who engaged the respondents therein (contract labour) in connection with that work. The services
of the respondents were terminated by the contractor and they claimed that they should be re-
instated in the service of the appellant. The Constitution Bench held, The words of the definition of
workmen in Section 2(z) to mean any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to
do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether
the terms of employment be express or implied are by themselves sufficiently wide to bring in
persons doing work in an industry whether the employment was by the management or by the
contractor of the management. Unless however the definition of the word employer included the
management of the industry even when the employment was by the contractor the workmen
employed by the contractor could not get the benefit of the Act since a dispute between them and
the management would not be an industrial dispute between employer and workmen. It was with a
view to remove this difficulty in the way of workmen employed by contractors that the definition of
employer has been extended by sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(i). The position thus is: (a) that the
respondents are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(z), being persons employed in the
27
industry to do manual work for reward, and (b) they were employed by a contractor with whom the
appellant company had contracted in the course of conducting the industry for the execution by the
said contractor of the work of removal of press mud which is ordinarily a part of the industry. It
follows therefore from Section 2(z) read with sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(i) of the Act that they are
workmen of the appellant company and the appellant company is their employer.”
So in view of the ratio as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the aforesaid case, the position in case of contract labourers has been settled to its fullest extent.
As discussed, the workmen have failed to establish the contract between the management and
labour contractors are sham or bogus, a smokescreen or camouflage, which deprived their
legitimate rights. Hence the submission of the learned counsel for the workmen taking the support
of the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. (Supra), has appears not much help for
them.
18. So in view of the above analysis and relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court and different High Courts, in the cases mentioned above, this court come to the
conclusion that the workmen have failed to establish that contracts, are sham and bogus, a
camouflage document, only to deprive their legitimate claim. They further failed to prove that the
so called contractors are nothing but the agents of the management and only name sake, become
an instrumentality in the hands of the management. They failed to establish that there exists the
relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the management and the
second party workmen. They further failed to prove that their non-regularization by the management
is illegal and their demand for regularization is justified by adducing cogent evidence. As discussed
above, the present workmen are the contract labourers and they can putforth their grievance
before the Appropriate Government for abolition of system contract labour from the establishment
of the management and then claim for their regularization as per law. Since the workmen have
failed to establish their case, they are not entitled for any relief, as refereed. Accordingly, it is
ordered.
AWARD
The reference be and the same, is rejected on contest against the management. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Dictated and corrected by me.
BIDYADHAR PRUSTY
BIDYADHAR PRUSTY
29-04-2024
29-04-2024
Presiding Officer
Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Jeypore
Labour Court, Jeypore
[No. 4857–LESI-IR-ID-0051/2021-LESI.]
By order of the Governor
NITIRANJAN SEN
Additional Secretary to Government
28
List of witness examined on behalf of 2nd Party Workmen.
W.W.1- Prasant Kumar Dwibedy.
W. W.2- R. Indu Bhusan.
W.W.3- Ajit Kumar Behera.
List of witness Examined on behalf of 1st Party Management.
M.W.1- Kamalesh Swain.
M.W.2- Fani Mangaraj.
M.W.3- Maheswar Behera.
List of documents marked as Exhibits for the 2nd Party Workmen.
Ext. 1- Photocopy of Letter No. 3378, dated the 31-10-1994 issued by the Executive Engineer,
Potteru Electrical Divn., Kalimela to the SE(Elc.), UKHEC, Bariniput for engagement of construction
labourers for maintenance works during construction of PSHEP.
Ext. 2- Photocopy of Letter No. 1837 dt. 25-8-1997 regarding submission of information required
for the scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR job contract workers under regular establishment of
the management.
Ext. 3- Photocopy of Letter No. 36/97/3656 (36)/PE., dt. 16-12-1997 of Govt. of Orissa, Department
of Public Enterprises.
Ext. 4- Photocopy of Letter in Memo. No. 2248, dt. 5-2-1991 of ElC, Electrical Project, Bhubaneswar
to the Energy Dept., Govt. of Odisha.
Ext. 5- Photocopy of Letter No.11990 dt. 30-7-1991 of creation of Civil and Electrical Division,
Power Plant Division-Ill of UKHEP.
Ext. 6- Photocopy of Letter No. 3365 dt. 25-8-99 of Sr. General Manager (E) UKHEP, Bariniput.
Ext. 7- Photocopy of Letter No. 5085, dt. 6-10-2001sanction of staff for O & M of PH-l & II PSHEP,
Gompakonda.
Ext. 8- Photocopy of Letter No. 26, dt. 01-10-2001 of the Manager, Electrical, Potteru Electrical
Divn., Kalimela to the management for posting of staff.
Ext. 9- Photocopy of representation of workmen for their regularization in the establishment for
operation & maintenance of PSHEP, Gompakonda.
Ext. 10- Photocopy of Letter No. 856, dt.15-3-2002 of the Manager, Electrical, Potteru Electrical
Divn., Kalimela to the management, forwarding the representation of the workmen.
Ext. 11- Photocopy of Letter No. 48, dt.10-5-2002 of OHPC.
Ext. 12- Photocopy of Letter No. 2282, dt. 8-5-2002 of management, Bariniput to the Director,
OHPC regarding agenda for 12th review meeting.
Ext. 13- Photocopy of Letter No. 75, dt. 01-06-2002 of OHPC, Bariniput regarding staffing pattern.
Ext. 14- Photocopy of proceeding of the Meeting of the Committee of Board of Directors held on
11 -7-2002.
Ext. 15-Photocopy of Letter No. 9755 dtd. 12-9-2003 of HRD, Bhubaneswar to the management.
Ext. 16- Photocopy of minutes of meeting held on 28-10-2003 regarding manpower assessment
for PSHEP.
Ext. 17- Photocopy of Letter No. 6369(WE) dt. 27-12-2004 of the management to the Director,
OHPC, BBSR regarding law and order situation at Potteru Project and engagement of contract
labour on consolidated wages.
Ext. 18- Photocopy of Experience Certificate issued by the OHPC Officers Letter No. 5494,
dt. 2-12-2005.
29
Ext. 19- Photocopy of programme for Test Synchronisation of PH-I of PSHEP on dt. 28-2-2007.
Ext. 20- Photocopy of Letter No. 37, dt.19-1-2008 of Manager, Potteru Electrical Divn., Kalimela
regarding running of Power House-I at PSHEP, Gompakonda.
Ext. 21- Photocopy of order in W.P. (c) No.11828 of 2009 of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Ext. 22- Photocopy of duty chart given by the Junior Manager, PSHEP, Kalimela.
Ext. 23- Photocopy of Experience Certificate issued by OHPC Officers, dtd. 5-6-2010 in favour of
Ajit Kumar Behera.
Ext. 24- Photocopy of Letter No. 9449 dt. 25-10-2010 of Dept. of Energy, Govt. of Odisha regarding
regularisation of service of workers working at PSHEP, Kalimela.
Ext. 25- Photocopy of Letter No. 8003, dt. 22-10-2010 of Asst. General Manager (HRD), OHPC
Ltd. to the Addl. Secretary, Dept. of Energy, Govt. of Odisha regarding taking of appropriate action
on grievance petition of the workmen.
Ext. 26- Photocopy of representation, dtd. 18-8-2011 of the workmen for regularisation of their
service address to Director (HRD), BBSR.
Ext. 27- Photocopy of Letter No. 9126, dt.13-11-2009 of OHPC Ltd., BBSR to the management.
Ext. 28- Photocopy of Letter No. 1176, dt. 21-3-2012 of OHPC, Bariniput to the workmen regarding
sale of Potteru Project.
Ext. 29- Photocopy of petition filed by the workmen in W.P.(c) No. 9841/2012 before the Hon’ble
Court.
Ext. 30- Photocopy of counter affidavit in W.P. (c) No. 9841/2012 filed by management.
Ext. 31- Photocopy of order of the Hon’ble Court in Misc.Case No. 8527/2012 arising out of
W.P. (c) No. 9841/2012, filed by workmen.
Ext. 32- Photocopy of Letter No. 01 dt.10-5-2012 of the Secretary, PKJBSS to the Asst. Gen.
Manager, UKHEP, OHPC Ltd. regarding their absorption under OHPC Ltd.
Ext. 33- Photocopy of Letter No.05 dt. 16-7-2012 of the Secretary, PKJBSS to the Manager (Elct.),
Potteru Electrical Divn., Kalimela for confirming the nature of work of the workmen.
Ext. 34- Photocopy of Letter No. 03, dt. 28.6.2012 of the Secretary, PKJBSS to the MD, OHPC
Ltd., BBSR for regularisation of workmen of Potteru Electrical Division, Kalimela.
Ext. 35- Photocopy of Letter No.12, dt. 29-9-2012 of the Secretary, PKJBSS to the Labour
Commissioner, BBSR for Grievance Petition of their regularization.
Ext. 36- Photocopy of representation, dtd. 24-1-2017 of the Secretary, PKJBSS address to CMD,
OHPC, BBSR for their regularization.
Ext. 37- Photocopy of Writ Petition filed by Gen. Sec., PKJBSS on behalf the workmen in W.P. (c)
No. 4799/2017.
Ext. 38- Photocopy of Judgement of the Hon’ble Court in W.P. (c) No. 4799 of 2017.
Ext. 39- Photocopy of Letter No. 05, dtd. 27-05-2017 address to CMD, OHPC, BBSR by the
present workmen for their regularization.
Ext. 40- Photocopy of Letter No. 5182, dt.17-7-2017 of the Director, HRD, OHPC Ltd. to the
Secretary, PKJBSS.
Ext. 41- Photocopy of reply Letter No.10, dtd.16-9-2017 submitted to the Director, HRD,
OHPC Ltd. from Sec., PKJBSS.
30
Ext. 42- Photocopy of authorisation letter issued to A. K. Bairiganjan vide Letter No. 39,
dt.13-2-2018 by the Head Master, Project High School, Bariniput.
Ext. 43- Photocopy of Letter No. 4486, dt.15-9-2017 of DGM, UKHEP, Bariniput to the Financial
Adviser, UKHEP, Bariniput.
Ext. 44- Photocopy of petition filed in W.P. (c) No. 3402 of 2019 by workmen.
Ext. 45- Photocopy of order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. ( c) No. 3402/2019.
Ext. 46- Photocopy of application, dtd. 16-4-2019 filed by the workmen through the Secretary,
PKJBSS to DLO, Malkangiri.
Ext. 47- Photocopy of order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(c) No. 8984/2019
dt.16-05-2019.
Ext. 48- Photocopy of representation, No.04 (4), dt. 28-6-2019 of Sec., PKJBSS, Gompakonda
address to the Principal Sec., Dept. of Energy, CMD, OHPC, Director (HRD), OHPC and
SGM, UKHEP.
Ext. 49- Photocopy of representation, dt. 3-7-2019 of Sec. PKJBSS, Gompakonda addressed
to DLO, Malkangiri.
Ext. 50- Photocopy of petition in W.P. (c) No.7372 of 2019 filed by workmen.
Ext. 51- Photocopy of petition W.P. (c) No.7428/2019 filed by the workmen.
Ext. 52- Photocopy of counter affidavit filed before the High Court of Orissa in W.P. (c)
No. 7482/2019 by the management.
Ext. 53- Photocopy of Letter No.10297 dt. 8-11-2019 submitted by the GM, (HR) to the
management regarding discussion held, dtd. 27-9-2019 on the charter of demand of OBKM
at OHPC Corporate Office.
Ext. 54- Photocopy of Letter No. 4513, dt. 26-5-2020 of GM(HR), OHPC to the Unit Head,
UKHEP, Bariniput forwarding the grievance petition of the workmen regarding regularisation
of their service.
Ext. 55- Photocopy of notice in Memo. No.1698, dt. 09-05-2019 of DLO, Malkangir to the
management for submitting views on the application of the workmen for conciliation.
Ext. 56- Photocopy of notice in Letter No. 2164, dt. 03-07-2019 of DLO, Malkangir to the
management for submitting views on the application of the workmen for conciliation.
Ext. 57- Photocopy of Letter No. 2745, dt. 5-9-2019 of DLC, Malkangiri to the Unit Head,Upper
Kolab HEP, OHPC Ltd., Bariniput for Complaint Petition of workmen.
Ext. 58- Photocopy of Letter No.1157, dt. 6-10-2020 to Sr. Gen. Manager (Ele.), Upper
Kolab,HEP, Bariniput for regularisation of service of workmen.
Ext. 59- Photocopy of Letter No.16, dt. 6-10-2020 of PKJBSS, Kalimela to the DLO, Malkangir.
Ext. 60- Photocopy of Letter No. 91, dt. 15-1-2021 of DLC, Malkangiri to the management
regarding submission of documents of the workmen for non-regularisation of their service.
Ext. 61- Photocopy of 161, dt. 8-2-2021 of DLC, Malkangiri regarding postponed of enquiry
date to 10-2-2021 in the matter of complaint petition of the workmen.
Ext. 62- Photocopy of Letter No. 472, dt. 15-3-2021 of DLC, Malkangiri to the management.
Ext. 63- Photocopy of Letter No. 31, dt. 31-3-2021 of the Secretary, PKJBSS to
the DLC, Malkangiri.
Ext. 64- Photocopy of detailed list of Labour Contractors engaged from 1993 to 2021 at
Potteru Project.
Ext. 65- Photocopy of Letter No.1524 (2), dt.16-6-2021 of DLO, Malkanigiri to the management
and the workmen about submission of conciliation failure report.
31
Ext. 66- Photocopy of Letter No. 2916, dt. 8-4-2022 address to Addnl. Sec. to Govt. of Odisha,
Labour & E.S.I. Dept.
Ext. 67- Photocopy of Advertisement No. 03, dt. 27-9-2022 of OHPC Ltd., BBSR for recruitment
of different posts in OHPC.
Ext. 68- Photocopy of Advertisement No. 04, dt. 27-10-2022 of OHPC Ltd, BBSR for
recruitment of different posts in OHPC.
Ext. 69- Photocopy of Letter No. 94, dt. 19-2-2013 of APPGC Ltd. regarding regularization of
five numbers of workers at Machhkund Project.
Ext. 70- Original Identity Card of Shri Govinda Jani.
Ext. 70/1- Original Identity Card of Shri Nila Paraja.
Ext. 70/2- Original Identity Card of Fatima Begum.
Ext. 70/3- Original Identity Card of Shri Laxman Gadba.
Ext. 70/4- Original Identity Card of Shri Ajit Ku. Behera
Ext. 70/5- Original Identity Card of Shri P .K.Dwibedy
Ext. 70/6- Original Identity Card of Shri Muka Madkami
Ext. 70/7- Original Identity Card of Shri K.C.Nayak
Ext. 70/7- Original identity Card of Shri K.C.Nayak
Ext. 70/8- Original Identity Card of Shri N.C.Panda
Ext. 70/9- Original Identity Card of Shri K.Podiami
Ext. 70/10- Original Identity Card of Shri H.G. Mohanty
Ext. 70/11- Original Identity Card of Shri Arajun Pujari
Ext. 70/12- Original Identity Card of Shri K.Raddy
Ext. 70/13- Original Identity Card of Shri A.Behera
Ext. 70/14- Original Identity Card of Shri Sinu Pangi
Ext. 70/15- Original Identity Card of Shri B.Madhi
Ext. 70/16- Original Identity Card of Shri R.N.Swani
Ext. 71- Photocopy of Letter No. 67, dt. 31-8-2013 of AGM (Elc.), PED, Kalimela for
engagement of skilled & unskilled workmen to the management.
Ext. 72- Original Experience Certificate of Shri P. K. Dwibedy.
Ext. 73- Photocopy of vehicle logbook of the office of PSHEP, Kalimela for the month of
Dec. 2003 and August 2004.
Ext. 74- Original Identity Card of Shri S. C. Pradhan.
Ext. 74/1- Original Identity Card of Shri R. K. Padhi.
Ext. 74/2- Original Identity Card of Shri P.C. Hial.
Ext. 74/3- Original Identity Card of Shri C.V. Sethi.
Ext. 74/4- Original Identity Card of Shri Arjuna Pujari
List of documents marked as Exhibits for the 1st Party Management
Ext. A- Photocopy of Agreement No. 01F2/2021-22, dt. 25-10-21 between the management
and labour contractor.
Ext. B- Photocopy of Agreement No. 33 F2/2020-21, dt.4-9-2020 between the management
and labour contractor.
Ext. C- Photocopy of Authorisation Certificate of Shri Kamlesh Swain, issued by the Senior
GM, UKHEP, Bariniput.
Ext. D- Photocopy of Authorisation Certificate of Shri Fani Mangaraj, issued by the Senior
GM, UKHEP, Bariniput.
32
Ext. E- Photocopy of Letter No. 4230, dt. 21-10-21 regarding issuance of work order of HPC,
Bariniput in favour of labour contractor M/s Daitari Sia.
Ext. F- Photocopy of counter affidavit of Prafulla Ku. Sahoo filed in W.P. (c) No. 9841/2012.
Ext. G- Photocopy of advertisement in Samaj, dt. 30-9-2014 by the management for
cancellation of recruitment process.
Ext. H. Photocopy of counter affidavit of Pranab Kumar Mohanty filed in W.P. (c)
No.7372/ 2019.
Ext. J- Photocopy of counter affidavit of Pranab Kumar Mohanty filed in W.P. (c)
No.7482/2019.
Ext. K- Photocopy of Tax Invoice of labour contractor M/s. Daitari Sia.
Ext. L- Photocopy of Tax Invoice of labour contractor M/s Shradha Enterprises,
dtd. 3-11-2021.
Ext. M-Photocopy of Letter No. 2570, dt. 6-4-2023 of OHPC, BBSR to P.K. Dwibedy for
appearance in Computer Bases Test.
Ext. N- Photocopy of e-admit card of Shri P.K.Dwibedy.
Ext. P- Photocopy of attendance sheet of Shri P.K.Dwibedy showing his appearance in CBT.
Ext. Q- Photocopy of Tax Invoice of M/s. Daitari Sia.
Ext. R- Photocopy of Tax Invoice of M/s. Daitari Sia.
Ext. S- Photocopy of Letter dtd. 9-7-21 of M/s Shradha Enterprises, labour contractor
addressed to the BM, Canara Bank, Jeypore Branch for payment of wages to the beneficiaries
therein.
Ext. T- Photocopy of Writ Petition in W.P. (c) No. 3402 of 2019 filed by the workmen.
Ext. V- Photocopy of Letter No. 3397, dt. 12-5-2023 intimating to P. K. Dwibedy regarding
result of Computer Based Test held on 16-04-23.
Ext. W- Photocopy of Letter No. 2466, dt. 15-5-23 intimating to P. K. Dwibedy regarding
result of Computer Bases Test held 16-4-23.
Printed and Published by the Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha, Cuttack-10
Ex. Gaz. 567—173+9