The Odisha
G a z e t t e
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 1328 CUTTACK, TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2024/ASADHA 18, 1946
LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 29th June 2024
S.R.O. No. 344/2024—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947), the Award dated the 30th March 2024 passed in the I.D. Case No. 01 of 2018 by Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore to whom the industrial dispute between the M/s. Utkal Alumina
International Ltd. (UAIL), At Doraguda, P.O. Kucheipadar, Dist. Rayagada, 2. M/s. Sri Ram
Constructions, Indiranagar, 3rd Lane, Near Ring Road, Dist. Rayagada and (1) Bhabani Charan
Satapathy, S/o Kali Charan Satapathy, At/P.O. Surad, Dist. Ganjam and 11 others, namely; (2) Dilip
Kumar Pradhan, (3) Basudev Sahoo, (4) Rajesh Kumar Panda, (5) Dilip Kumar Achary, (6) Durga
Prasad Pattanaik, (7) Jyoti Ranjan Jena, (8) Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, (9) Vivek Kumar Singh,
(10) Rajendra Narayan Swain, (11) G. Ananta Krishna, (12) Abhisekh Kumar 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 2018
Dated the 30th March 2024
[ U/s. 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ]
Present :
Shri Bidyadhar Prusty, M.A., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Jeypore.
Between :
1. M/s. Utkal Alumina International Ltd. (UAIL),
. .
First Party—Managements
At Doraguda, P.O. Kucheipadar,
Dist. Rayagada.
2. M/s. Sri Ram Constructions,
Indiranagar, 3rd Lane, Near Ring Road,
Dist. Rayagada.
2
Versus
(1) Bhabani Charan Satapathy,
. .
Second Party—Workmen
S/o Kali Charan Satapathy,
At/P.O. Surad, Dist. Ganjam and 11others, namely:
(2) Dilip Kumar Pradhan, (3) Basudev Sahoo,
(4) Rajesh Kumar Panda, (5) Dilip Kumar Achary,
(6) Durga Prasad Pattanaik, (7) Jyoti Ranjan Jena,
(8) Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, (9) Vivek Kumar Singh,
(10) Rajendra Narayan Swain, (11) G. Ananta Krishna,
(12) Abhisekh Kumar
Appearances :
1. Shri B. P. Tripathy & Associates, Advocate
. .
For the First Party—Management
2. Shri G. B. Samantray, Advocate
. .
For the Second Party—Management
Shri K. N. Samantray
. .
For the Second Party—Workmen
Date of Argument
. .
21-03-2024
Date of Award
. .
30-03-2024
The matter arises out of a reference submitted by the appropriate Govt. under
Section 12 (5) read with S.10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity hereinafter
referred as I.D. Act, 1947) in the matter of the industrial disputes between both the parties.
1. Brief facts of the case of the 2nd party workmen is as follows :
The present workmen have filed the present case against the managements No.1&2 claiming
for their regularization and back wages under the permanent roll of management No.1. This case is
the outcome of the reference of the appropriate Govt. relating to the industrial disputes between the
parties. The present workmen averred that they are locally established and are residing in nearby
places of Doraguda, where UAIL is commissioned by Aditya Birla Group of Companies in the district
of Rayagada. They averred that they have legitimate rights and genuine claims for the employment
in view of their eligibility, educational backgrounds and the professional qualifications together with
previous experiences. Accordingly they were called upon to face the selection process and interviewed
by the management officials of UAIL. On being selected, they were appointed on contractual basis
in different departments as required by the authorities of UAIL. But their salaries were paid not
directly by UAIL but through different outsourced Paying Agencies who had taken the sham labour
contracts, for extraneous reasons. Their further contention is that the mala fide intention of the
management of UAIL during the commissioning of the Plant was to get their services against
UAIL’s perennial jobs, but their remuneration were paid through different and variable Paying
Agencies, although their salaries were fixed, increased with increments by the UAIL Authorities
alone. They were issued gate passes to enter into the prohibited areas of the establishment of
management No.1. Similarly, the duties and responsibilities allotted to them by UAIL were directly
supervised and controlled by the UAIL authorities only, in the interest of UAIL. At no point of time the
Paying Agencies supervised their duties on day-to-day basis. Their further contention is that they
were assured by the HR Head of the Principal Employer (UAIL) that the HR Dept. has already
3
initiated the proposal to permanently absorb and regularise their services of all the sincere and
honest performers against the perennial nature of jobs only after the plant becomes operational
and their services shall be on UAIL Permanent Roll. As such, they, with hope awaited the approval
from the competent authority and in the meanwhile some of them were taken to Permanent Roll of
UAIL, except the present workmen. They further averred that around the year 2014-15, the Aditya
Birla Group at its Mumbai Office approved by way of sanctioning .15 number of posts for regularisation
and absorption of their services. They contended that these approvals were made because in
similar situations the different claimants were given permanence to the job held according to their
qualification and experience from the date of their eligibility. They further averred that their initial
salaries ranging from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 25,000 and they were also given due increments by UAIL at
par with permanent employees of UAIL and they were as on the 31st March 2017, drawing salaries
ranging from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 35,000 after increments basing on honesty, merit, suitability,
performances and sincerity in due discharge of their duties allotted by UAIL directly, irrespective of
the change of contractors/paying agencies. They further averred that having accrued their rights
over the perennial nature of posts, therefore legitimately expected that their respective services
from their respective dates of joining in contractual appointments since 2009 onwards, shall be
regularised and also to be absorbed in UAIL’s permanent employees roll and they will draw their
salaries not from Contractors/Paying Agencies (i.e. indirectly from UAIL), but from the UAIL
establishment directly, being in UAIL Roll. They further averred that when many of name sake
contractors/paying agencies have changed, they were continuously working in their respective
posts without any break under the direct control and supervision of UAIL officials. Even they were
worked, when there was no contractor/paying agency engaged by the Management No.1 and
arrangements were made for payment of their wages retrospectively. It all shows that they were
working under the direct control and supervision of Management No.1. While the matter stood thus,
after the retirement of HR Head of UAIL, the new incumbent joined and realised that he had discretion
to appoint his kith and kin and otherwise for corrupt practices to satisfy his vested interests and
wanted to remove the present workmen with mala fide intention. On the 1st April 2017, as
apprehended earlier, while they were going to work, the security staff of UAIL did not allow them to
enter the premises and to work as before, without any written disengagement/termination letters,
as the case may be which are required under the law of the land. Thereafter they immediately
approached before the Labour Authorities, Rayagada for justice. But under the pressure of UAIL,
when their case was not taken up by district labour authorities, as deserved, they had approached
before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 8543/2017, wherein on the 12th May 2017 a
direction was issued to the Labour Authorities, Rayagada to take up the matter as grievance under
Section 12 of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, thereafter, the matter was referred to conciliation. On being
noticed, the UAIL opposed the dispute and stated that the present workmen are working under
licensed contractors and not as workmen under I.D. Act, and they cannot claim any relief as prayed.
As the contract period expires, their jobs got stopped. Also it was stated that no back wages can be
paid by UAIL. On being noticed, the paying agencies/contractors, namely M/s Sri Ram Constructions
(M-2) had participated and stated that it has never recruited workmen. These workmen were not
reporting to it. Rather they were reporting to the department heads of UAIL and it was their paymaster
only. The concerned departments of the UAIL was certifying the muster roll of these workmen for
making payment and processing of bill by Management No. 2 . The work order through which these
workmen were employed was in force till the 31st March 2017 and the same was not renewed, so
it could not continue their employment. So it issued notice to all concerns relieving from their
employment after the 31st March 2017 and requested them to settle their full and final dues at the
accounts department. The case before the conciliation officer was adjourned to the 19th June
4
2017, then to 28th June 2017 and then to 15th September 2017. On the last mentioned date, the
management No. 2 and the workmen were present, but the Management No. 1 of M/s. UAIL neither
attended the conciliation nor communicated their stand on the dispute raised by the workmen. As
such, the conciliation officer expressed his inability and held that there could not be any amicable
settlement between the parties in the present industrial dispute in question, although the referred
contract agreements with labour contractors are simply sham in nature, camouflaged and void
ones, and as such the petitioners were ‘workmen’ of UAIL and they have had genuine and legitimate
claim for regularization with back wages. After analysis of fact on records, the Conciliation Officer
further held that having no amicable settlement between the parties, the conciliation proceeding
ended in failure and the report under Sec.12(4) of I.D. Act submitted on the 22nd December 2017 to
appropriate authorities. Then they waited another two months but there was no response from the
State Labour Authorities. Therefore, they were forced to approach before the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.(C) No. 1039/2018, wherein on the 12th February 2018 a direction was issued to the State
Labour Authorities to take up the matter. Accordingly, thereafter, the matter was referred by Appropriate
Govt. to this Court for adjudication. They further averred that despite being the genuine workmen of
UAIL, they are harassed by the management of UAIL, under a sham contract agreement with
varied paying agencies which was unfair labour practice and not valid under the law. They further
contended that there are series of judicial decisions and precedents in respect of the issues involved
in the present case, similar to the cases of denials of regularisation as well as non-payments of
salaries at par with permanent employees. With the above averments, they prayed to answer this
reference in favour of the 2nd party workmen and direct the 1st party management No. 1 to declare
them as the employees of Utkal Alumina International Limited since the date’ of their joining and fix
their pay and service conditions at par with its regular employees. To direct the UAIL Management
No.1 to release their arrears and current remunerations/salaries/wages as on the 31st March 2017
w.e.f. the 1st April 2017. To direct the UAIL Management No. 1 to hold recruitment/placement of
personnel against their vacancies/posts from the existing candidates on temporary roll in UAIL
alike them / with outside fresh candidates and to grant any other proper and equitable relief in their
favour in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the case of the 1st party management No.1 is as follows :–
On receipt of notice, both the managements have entered their appearance and filed their
respective separate show causes. In its show cause, the Management No.1 has averred that the
demands of the workmen who claims regularization in service in the industry are not its employees
and there was no such master and servant relationship exists at any point time in between them.
The 1st Party Management No.1 has used to engage the contractors to do the job of petty works for
the time at requirement. The contractors are engaged different people according to their choice
and such workers receive their wages etc. from the contractors who use to engage them. The 1st
Party Management No. 1 is neither the pay master nor the disciplinary authority or controlling authority
in any manner. As such the claim is not sustainable in law. It contended that the first party
management No.1 i.e. Utkal Alumina International Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hindalco
Industries Ltd., Aditya Birla Group. It is an Alumina Refinery comprising of 1.5 MTPA refineries, 90
MW CGPP. It has its captive bauxite mines at Baphlimali, 20 km away from the plant location. The
first party management No.1, after obtaining required registration in that behalf, commenced its
factory and started its commercial productions from December, 2013. It contended that there are
sizable numbers of employees employed under the first party management No.1. In some specific
nature of work, it has been engaged contractors, who are to carry out certain works of the factory
of the first party management No.1 on work order basis for stipulated period, as per needs. The
5
establishment of the first party management No.1 has been duly registered under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, the CLR Act) and the contractors coming
under the purview of the Act have been licensed under the said Act. It averred that the management
No. 2 was engaged to undertake some jobs on contract basis and in order to perform the same, he
had engaged 11 numbers of the members of the second party workmen as contract workers. On
completion of the contract period, the said contractor offered the legitimate dues of the above
contract workers. As such, the second party workmen cannot seek to ventilate any grievance
against this first party management No.1, they having not been employed by it, at any point of time.
It further contended that the allegations brought in against the first party management No.1 in the
statement of claim, are unfounded and as such, are denied. At any rate such allegations in no way
have any relevance to the purported dispute raised on behalf of the second party workmen. The
first party management had appeared before the conciliation proceedings held by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Rayagada as and when required. It is asserted that the first party management
No.1 had participated in the conciliation proceeding which ended in failure. It averred that the officials
of the first party management No.1 had never made any oral interview as alleged by the second
party workmen. There is only occasional inspection regarding the work performance vis-a-vis the
requirement of the first party management No.1. As per the claim of the contractor, first party
management No. 2 regarding wages of the second party workmen, as principal employer, the first
party management No.1 ascertains that the contractor, first party management No. 2 makes
payments of wages to the members of the second party workmen. The contractor, first party
management No. 2 recruits his own men, supervises their work and finally makes payment to his
respective employees which is ascertained by the first party management No.1 only. It further
contended that the HR Head of the principal employer (UAIL) had never initiated any proposal to
absorb and regularize the honest and sincere performers from among the members of the second
Party Workmen after the plant becomes operational. The second party members have no direct
interaction with the first party management No. 1 or for that purpose any of the management staff.
These are the own imagination and creation of the members of the second party workmen. It
further contended that the averments and submissions made in the statement of claim, itself expose
the ill-intent of the members of the second party workmen in their vain efforts to scandalize the first
party management No.1 before the various Governmental Authorities in order to sub-serve their
selfish ends. It further submitted that the members of the second party workmen having been
engaged by the contractor for specified period, after expiry of the period and the job contract was
over, the gate pass of the respective employees of the contractor were seized. Their engagement
having come to an end they could not have been allowed entry inside the premises of the factory
area. It is submitted by the management No. 1 that in the statement of claim, the second party
members have referred to various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has not been disputed
by it regarding the position of law. But, the second party workmen are not in same footing so as to
be covered by the ratio of the above decisions. They being contract employees and engaged by the
contractor to perform specified job, the referred decisions may not have any assistance to them.
The position of law as referred to in the statement of claim is inapplicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case of the second party members and as such, the cited decisions may not
benefit them in any manner. The members of the second party are employed by the first party
management No.2, the contractor who is also their paymaster. It further contended that the reference
is wrong and without jurisdiction and as such may not maintainable before this Court as there is no
dispute at all under the I.D. Act, 1947 and the matter is comes under the provisions of CLARA,
1970, since both the managements are registered and licensed under the said Act, 1970. with the
6
above averments, the 1st party management No.1 has submitted that no relief much less the
fallacious relief sought for in the prayer to the statement of claim, could be granted in favour of the
second party members or any relief at all, and as such, the reference may kindly be answered in
the negative disentitling the members of the second party to any relief, whatsoever.
3. Brief facts of the case of the 1st party management No. 2 is as follows;
The management No. 2 in its show cause has denied the allegations made by the second
party workman. It is submitted that the second party workmen were previously engaged with Mytri
Infra and as requested, the First Party Management no. 2 had given them work on contractual
basis, after it got contract from management No 1. The first party management No. 2 had made the
workmen to understand the engagement of work was purely temporary and month to month basis.
The second party workmen assured the first party management No. 2 that they shall not claim any
service benefit as regular permanent employees in future and agreed to work as contract labourer
under the first party management No. 2 and as such they were engaged to work as contract
labourer under which he had undertaken the work, as per the direction of first party management
No. 2. It further averred that the present workmen are well aware of the nature of their work and the
allegation that they only got information of change of contractor at the time of payment only is not
true. It is not true that they had no relation with the contractors as the contractors were never
supervising their work. They never gave any leave application to any contractor as alleged. The fact
remained that the 1st party management No. 2 had continuous supervision and control over the
works of the present workmen through its staffs, while working in the establishment of management
No.1 during the contract period. It further contended that when the work order was completed on
31st March 2017, the first party management No. 2 relieved the present workmen from their posts
by giving notices with the option to settle their full and final dues at the accounts department. It
further, averred that there is no dues pending of the present workmen with it. It also contended that
the case of the second party workmen is not maintainable in law since the same is barred by law of
limitation and on the principles of estoppel. Thus it submitted that the case of the second party
workman is devoid of any merit and not liable for any consideration. Hence it prayed to reject the
reference in the interest of justice.
4. Schedule of the references:
(a) “Whether the contract between M/s. Sri Ram Constructions, Indira Nagar, 3rd Line,
near Ring Road, Rayagada-765001, Odisha (Contractor) and M/s. Utkal Alumina International Ltd.,
At. Doraguda, P.O. Kuchipadar, Rayagada-765015, Odisha (Principal Employer) was genuine or it
was rose/sham and whether the workmen namely Shri Bhabani Charan Satapathy and 11 others,
whose services were terininated w.e.f. the 1st April 2017 are entitled to be absorbed on the rolls of
M/s. Utkal Alumina International Ltd. w.e.f. the 1st April 2017"?
5. In order to establish their case, the 2nd party workmen have examined as many as eleven (11)
numbers of witnesses on their behalf and also relied on several documentary evidences. On the
other hand, the management No.1 has examined one witness on its behalf as M.W. No.1 and
management No. 2 has examined one witness on its behalf as M.W. No. 2. Apart from the oral
evidences, both the managements have also relied on several documentary evidences.
6. Learned counsel for the workmen Mr. Samantray has submitted that the present workmen are
directly employed by the management No.1 in the year 2009 after facing the oral interview and
verification of the relevant documents by the officers of the management No.1. After their
7
engagement, they were directly worked under the control and supervision of the officers of the
management No. 1 , at different departments of management No.1 as evident from the statement
of W.W. 11, who was the ex-manager of Materials Deptt. of management No. 1. But the name sake
contractors like Management No. 2 are only the paying agencies. He further submitted that Exts. 1
to 14, Exts. 52, 53, 54, etc. proved the fact that the present workmen were paid through the name
sake contractors by way of giving work orders/purchase orders. He further submitted that the
present workmen were working under the direct supervision and control of the officers of
management No. 1 as the other regular employees were working. No name sake contractors at
any point of time supervise the work of the present workmen within the establishment of management
No. 1. Even the present management No. 2 has admitted in its statement deposed before D.L.O.,
Rayagada that the present workmen were not their employees during the conciliation proceeding
marked Ext. 28. Even M.W.2 during his evidence in Para. 36 has clearly stated that he has no idea
about Ext. 28. So he submitted that from the evidence of M.W. 2 and Ext. 28, one thing is clear that
the present workmen are not the labourers of management No. 2 but the employees of the
management No 1. He further submitted that the present workmen were working under the Materials
Deptt., Store, Purchase and Weigh Bridge Sections of the said Deptt., which are perennial nature
of jobs and an important part of the function of the establishment of the management No. 1. Without
the contribution of the present workmen, the operation of the establishment is not passible and
hence an essential nature of job, the workmen were performing. The area where the present
workmen were performed their works are prohibited one and no one has access into it without the
permission of management No.1. For that reason, gate passes were issued by the security officer
of management No. 1 as evident from Exts. 25 series, which discloses that the management No. 1 has
effective control over the works of the workmen. This fact has also admitted by the witness of
management No. 1 as M.W.1 during his cross-examination. He further submitted that there were
disciplinary control and the security of the workmen bestowed on the officers of the management
No. 1, 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 No. 1 and paid accordingly, which shows its financial control. He further
submitted that the management No. 1 has took the attendance of workmen and managing the
attendance registers. But the managements have failed to adduce any such register, which is
under its control during hearing of this case. He further submitted that although the name sake
contractors were changed, but the workmen/labourer were the same throughout the years together.
Not only this, he submitted that the present workmen were paid less wages than the wages of
regular employees for performing the same nature of work, which amounts to Unfair Labour Practice.
He further submitted that the so called contractors, including the present management No. 2 were
not registered as required under the provisions of the contract labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act,
1970 (CLARA) to carry out the desired works within the materials department of management
No.1 as evident from Ext. P and Ext. Q. No document of registration of other name sake contractors
have been filed by the management No.1 during hearing to prove its contention as required U/s.11
of the CLARA, 1970. This shows that the management has violated the norms of CLARA, 1970.
The so called contractor management No.1 has no valid contract license to engage contract
labourers as per the purchase order vide Ext. Q. There is no contract agreements between the
management and the so called contractors. There was no tender floated for the engagement of
contractors for this purpose. Not a single piece of documents has filed by the management to that
effect. Thus he submitted that the so called work/purchase orders issued in favour of the so called
contractors, for engagement of contract labourers are only sham documents, in order to s t i f l e
8
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 5-7 years. So he submitted to pass necessary orders for absorption of
the present workmen into the permanent roll of management No.1 along with their back wages and
other service benefits. In support of his averments, he placed his reliance in the following decisions.
Paradip port trust vs. their Workmen & Ors. (2004) suppOri Law Review 753, Gujrat Electricity
Board, Thermal Power Station, Gujrat Vrs. Hind Majdoor Sabha & Ors. 1995 SCC 790, Secretary,
H.S.E.B vs Suresh Ors AIR 1999 (SC) 1160, Fakir Lohar vrs. FCI & Ors. 1993 (Supp) LLJ, 80 Cal.,
Steel Authority of India Ltd. & OrsVrs. National Water Front Workers Union & Ors. 2001 (II) LLJ
1087 SC, Jamsedpur Contractors Works Union Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1994-III-LLJ (Supp) 376
SC, Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 LLJ 53, (Del.), Hussainbhai Calicut Vs.
The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Ors AIR 1978 (SC) 1410, Denanath & Ors. Vrs.
National Fertilisers Ltd. & Ors. 1992 SC 1292, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and
Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer. (CGLC) & Ors. (2008) indiankanoon.org, Mad., and Mahanadi Coalfields
Ltd. Vrs. Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union (2024) indiankanoon.org, SC.
7. Learned Coursed for the management No.1 Shri Tripathy 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 between the management No.1 and the present
workmen. He further submitted that the present workmen are the labourers of Management No. 2.
He submitted that the management No.1 has obtained the required license from the appropriate
authority to engage contract labour system to do certain works for the functioning its establishment
through labour contractors as evident from Ext.L and other license issued from time to time.
Accordingly contractors were appointed by issuing of work/purchase orders for accomplishment
of different works. He further submitted that the labour contractor, management No. 2 has requisite
license as per the provisions of the CLARA, 1970 to engage contract labourers as evident from
Ext.P. The said contractors had engaged the present workmen for different works as per the terms
of purchase/work orders in the establishment of the management No. 1. There is no direct payment
of wages to the present workmen. The contractors were paid the wages to its labourers after
receiving the same from the management No.1. The management never had any control over the
present workmen. The management No.1 had never appointed the present workmen through direct
interview and never issued any appointment letter in their favour. 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
there is no violation of any provision of the CLARA, 1970 and Rules made thereunder. Further the
said labourers are employed in certain specific work, as per the work/purchase orders under their
contractors for certain period of time and when the terms of contract was over, the question of
continuance of work claimed by the present workmen does not arise. The present workmen had
never worked for 240 days in a year, so as to qualify to be the workmen. Merely the present workmen
worked in the establishment of management No.1, ipso facto, cannot say that they are its regular
employees. They are contract labourers, employed through their respective contractors and hence,
their claim for regularization or absorption into permanent roll of management No. 1, does not
arise. He further submitted that there was no question of practice 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. The labourers cannot claim equal status to that of regular employees of the
management No.1. He further submitted that the statement of claim filed by Bhabani Charan Satpathy
on behalf of other workmen has no valid authority to file the same and hence the same is not
9
maintainable. He further submitted that the present reference is bad and not maintainable under
the I.D. Act, 1947 as the matter comes under the provisions of CLARA, 1970, since both the
management No. 1 and No. 2 are registered under the provisions of CLARA, 1970, having valid
license to engage contract labourers. The status of the present workmen are the contract labourers
under their respective contractors. He further submitted that the names of the present workmen
found mentioned in Exts. 3, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and Ext.16 are fabricated documents and hence
the same are not reliable. He further submitted that Ext.18 has been issued by W.W.1 in his personal
capacity as admitted by him during cross-examination, hence the same has no bearing on merit of
this case. He further submitted that W.W.1, was the employee of the management No. 1 and due
his involvement of irregular activities in the company, FIR was lodged against him in the year 2016
and he was an absconder since then. He further submitted that said W.W.1 was called for his
explanation due to his unauthorised absent from duty as evident from Ext.H. He submitted that in
order to take vengeance of his personal score, W.W.11 has deposed against the management
No.1. He submitted that the said W.W.11 is an interested witness and reliance cannot be placed on
the testimony of such witness. He further submitted that the management No 2 has clearly stated
that the present workmen are the contract labourers under it for certain period till the 31st March
2017 and due to non-renewal of its terms of contract, it disengaged the present workmen with their
full and final settlement of all the dues. Thus he submitted that the claim of the workmen are not
maintainable under the reference and may be rejected in the interest of justice.
8. Learned counsel for the management No. 2, Mr. G.S. Samantray has submitted that as per
the license issued by the appropriate authority vide Ext.P, it engaged the present workmen into the
assigned works in the establishment of management No.1 from the 26th September 2016 to 31st
March 2017 as evident from Ext.Q. Since the contract has not been renewed, it disengaged the
present workmen from the 31st March 2017 after giving all the dues. He further submitted that the
present workmen have no claim against the management No. 2 as found from the statement of
claim and from the evidences of witnesses of the workmen. He submitted that in order to harass
the management No. 2, the present workmen has made it a party to this proceeding unnecessarily.
Hence, he submitted to reject the reference against the management No.2 in the interest of justice.
FINDINGS
9. The present reference is the outcome of the industrial disputes raised by one Bhabani
Charan Satpathy in the representative character on behalf of 11 other workmen, named in the
cause title of the body of this award, working under the management, demanding their regularisation.
They averred that they were engaged by the 1st party management No. 1 directly for working in the
its establishment at Doraguda in the district of Rayagada, Odisha and they were working in the
company in different parts throughout the year under the control and supervision of the officials of
the company, in different jobs of clerical nature like stores, purchase, weigh bridge etc. Under the
materials Deptt. of management No.1, since 2009 till their disengagement on the 31st March 2017.
Therefore, they are the workers, working in a perennial nature of work and hence entitled to be
absorbed into the regular roll of the company. They further averred that they were paid their salary
through different paying agencies like that of management No.2, but they basically under the control
and supervision of management No.1. The contractors are only name sake for the purpose of only
to pay their salaries. They further contended that the contractors were name sake and the contract
if any, is bogus and sham, only to deprive the legitimate claim of the present workmen. The
managements averred that they were working in the company not directly, but through their
contractors and hence they are not the employees of the company and they are the labourers of
10
their respective contractors. It was further averred that the present persons (workmen) so worked
not throughout the year but only for a particular period as per the terms of the contract executed
between the labour contractors and management No. 1 and hence, none of them completed 240
working days in a year and hence they are not ‘workmen’ as per the provision of S. 2(s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. The management No.1 further contended that they are receiving their wages from their
respective contractors and there is no relationship of servant-master or employees-employer existed
between them. Management No. 2 has submitted that it has executed the contract vide Ext. Q with
management No.1 for carrying out the work as per the terms of the said contract and accordingly,
it employed the present workmen in the given work. It further submitted that when the tenure of
contract was completed and no renewal was made, it disengaged them with all their dues w.e.f. the
31st March 2017.
10. In this backdrop of averments, first I have to advert to discuss the legality and maintainability
of reference made to this Court by the Appropriate Govt. as contended by the parties. Before going
to discuss the factual aspects, give a cursory look at the law settled on the point of contract labour
system and its implication in the industrial relationship in the perspective of the present case.
In Hussainbhai, Calicut. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para. 5&6 has held as under;
“The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or 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’ subsis-
tence, 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 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.
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.”
In sankar Mukharjee&Ors. Vs. Union of india (UOI) &Ors. AIR 1973 (SC) 2650, the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Para. 6 has held as under;
“It is surprising that more than forty years after the independence the practice of employing
labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted
as a normal feature of labour-employment. There is no security of service to the workmen and
their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. This Court in Standard-
Vaccum Refining Co. Of India Ltd. v. Its workmen, [1960] 3 SCR 466 and Catering Cleaners’ of
Southern Railway Vrs. Union of India &Anr., [1987] 1 SCC 700 has disapproved the system of
contract labour holding it to be ‘archaic’, ‘primitive’ and of ‘baneful nature’. The system, which is
11
nothing but an improved version of bonded-labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is
an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed.”
In H.S.E.B Vrs. Suresh (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para. 21 has held as under;
“It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in which it is found that there was any genuine
contract labour system prevailing with the Board. If it was a genuine contract system, then obviously,
it had to be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act after
following-the procedure laid down therein. However, on the facts of the present case, it was found
by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the High Court that the so called contractor Kashmir
Singh was a mere name lender and had procured labour for the Board from the open market. He
was almost a broker or an agent of the Board for that purpose. The Labour Court also noted that the
management witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell whether Shri Kahsmir Singh was a
licensed contractor or not. That workmen had made a statement that Shri Kahsmir Singh was not
a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, It has to be held that factually there was no
genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only
the principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing labour on his own
account. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the
Board at the relevant time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labour
Regulation and Abolition Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer and the so called contractor
Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be
reached was to the effect that the so called contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and
a screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real
contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand, and the employees, on the other,
could be clearly visualised.”
In Bhilwara Dughd Sahakari S. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma (dead) by LRs &Ors. AIR (2011)
SC. 3546, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paras. 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.”
In FCI, Haryana Region Vrs. The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Ind. Tribunal and Anr. (1987)
2 SLR 678, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Para. 11 & 12 has held as under;
“11, The Corporation had feigned total ignorance about the fact as to which person had been
employed by the contractor. It has also feigned total ignorance of the fact as to whether contractors
engaged by it had possessed the license envisaged by Section 12 of the Contract Labour Act.
Such ignorance in our view is unacceptable in the light of the provisions of Section 29 of the Contract
Labour Act. The Corporation had by feigning ignorance tried to suppress from the Tribunal facts
which must be unfavorable to it.
12
Every worker, in our view, who works for a principal employer to whom the provisions of Contract
Labour Act are attracted, is to be treated as the worker of the principal employer unless two conditions
are satisfied;
(i) That the establishment had secured a certificate of registration for the relevant period; and
(ii) It had employed contract labour through a licensed contractor.
12. If neither of the conditions is missing then the contract labour employed trough the contractor
shall be treated to be the “worker” of the employer.”
In The General Manager (P&A), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. The General
Secretary, General Employee Association, List of Workmen (1-16) and Shri A. A. Lad, Presiding
Officer. (CGIT) No.2 (2010) 3 AIR Bom R 584, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Paras. 58 to 62
has held as under;
“58. The evidence also shows that when these employees started working with the petitioner,
the contractors did not have the necessary licenses under the Act and the Licenses came to be
applied for or obtained by the contractors much later on. In Secretary, H.S.E.B. Vs. Suresh and
Others etc., it is observed that once the so called contractor was not a licensed contractor under
the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect that so called contract
system was a mere camouflage, smoke screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which
could easily be pierced and, the real contractual relationship between the principal employer, on the
one hand, the employees, on the other, could be clearly visualized. In the present case, this is one
added factor which shows that the contract is sham and bogus as in the present case, the evidence
on record shows that none of the contractors had a license at the relevant time.
59. In Steel Authority of India Ltd (Supra), which is a decision by the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court, it has been held that on issuance of prohibition under notification under
Section 10(1) of the C.L.R.A. Act which, prohibits employment of contract labour. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but mere a camouflage, so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the establishment concerned and if necessary by relaxing the condition.
60. It is not the case of the petitioner that, they are not concerned at all with the employees
involved in the reference. The stand of the petitioner is that, they are contract workers and since
they are not on the establishment of the petitioner, they cannot be its ‘workmen’. However, the
evidence on record shows to the contrary.
61. Mr. Cama also placed reliance on Para. 22 of the decision in the case of Indian
Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Shramik Sena and Others. However, this decision
has been considered in the. case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. In Hindalco’ Industries Ltd, the Supreme
Court has also considered the fact that the workers who were in employment for a long period of
time due to the order made by the Industrial Court and that the continuous employment of the
workmen was not voluntary. It was observed that, as (a) the workmen have been employed for long
years and despite a change of contractors the workers continued to be employed in the canteen,
(b) evidence on record established the ultimate control of management on the canteen employees.
In such case, the Court would be entitled to pierce the veil and arrive at a finding that the Justification
relating to appointment of a contractor is sham or nominal and in effect and substance there exists
a direct relationship of employer and employee between the principal and the workmen. In the
present case also, both these aspects are found very much present. The material on record clearly
13
shows that the activities of the workmen are ultimately controlled by the Company. Thus, considering
all the mentioned factors cumulatively, it can safely be said that the Respondents - Workmen are in
fact the workmen of the Petitioners - Management. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly
right in arriving at the conclusion that the contract is nothing but a paper agreement and granting
relief.
62. The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence and material on record. The award
is based on the evidence and the material on record and hence, it does not call for any interference.
Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
11. The contention of the management No.1 is that the present Reference made by the
Appropriate Govt. is bad in law and not maintainable in respect of management No.1 on two grounds,
viz. first there no industrial disputes exists in between management No.1 and the present workmen
as there exists no employer-employee relationship and the second is that the dispute exclusively
comes under the provisions of CLARA, 1970. It was submitted that the management No.1 has duly
registered u/s.7 of the CLARA, 1970 and having license to engage labour contractors for certain
temporary nature of works. So also the management No. 2 is licensed contractor to provide
manpower to the establishment of management No.1. Since the present workmen are the contract
labourers and engaged only for specific period, on the termination of the said period, they were
disengaged, there exists no industrial dispute between parties, especially in respect of management
No.1, so as to come (under the I.D. Act, 1947. It was contended that matter at best comes under
the purview of CLARA, 1970. But the fact remains that this reference was made on the direction of
the Hon’ble Court vide Order dtd. the 9th February 2018 in W.P.(c) No. 1039/2018 vide Ext.31. The
management No.1 was a party to the said writ application before the Hon’ble Court. Since it was a
party to the said proceeding, it must raise its objection of its maintainability before the higher forum.
But it remained’ silent throughout and on the stage of argument raising such issue has force at all.
Since the order of the Hon’ble Court has not been challenged, it got its finality. Further law is well
settled (Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SAIL, supra) that when the question of sham or
camouflage raised in respect of a contract, the industrial adjudicator has authority to test its validity
and the Appropriate Govt. has jurisdiction to refer the dispute to any industrial adjudicator for its
answer. Here in this case the present workmen has challenged the contract between the
management No1 and management No. 2 vide Ext.Q on the grounds of sham and camouflage.
Therefore, the reference as made by the Appropriate Govt. legal and maintainable before this Court.
12. The next contention of the management No.1 is that the person Bhabani Charan Satpathy,
who signed the statement of and filed the case has no authority to file the present claim on behalf
of other persons named in the statement of claim. But on perusal of case record, it is found that all
the workmen named above, have duly authorized said Bhabani Charan Satpathy to file the present
claim on behalf of others. So the contention of the Management No.1 that said B.C. Satpathy has
no authority to file the statement of claim on behalf of other workmen has no force at all. The
contention raised by the management No. 2 that the case is not maintainable being barred by law
of limitation, in view of the settled principle of law that the law of limitation is not applicable in respect
of an industrial dispute referred by the Appropriate Govt., the same is rejected.
13. Next come to the crux of the issue i.e, the determination of the nature of the contract between
the management No.1 and No. 2 as refereed by the Appropriate Govt. It is the contention of the
workmen that the so called contract between the management No.1 and the contractor management
No. 2, alleged to be executed, is said to be sham and bogus and is Camouflage documents, only to
14
deprive the legitimate rights of the present workmen. The contention of the management No.1 is
that it has registered under Section 7 of the CLARA, 1970 and permitted to engage contractors for
supply of manpower for carrying out some temporary nature of work. It has filed the registration
certificate issued by the Competent Authority as per CLARA, 1970 in its favour marked as Exts. L to
Exts. N series. On perusal of these exhibits, it is found that the management No.1 has registered
itself for deployment of different contractors to carry out different nature of work as specified in the
Form of Registration marked Ext. L to Ext. N series, which amended Form of Registration of the
main Form Registration issued to it in the year 1997 bearing No. 16/1997. But the management
No.1 has not submitted the said main initial Registration bearing No.16/1997, in order to verify as to
what purpose the said form of registration was issued. Why this document was withheld by
Management no.1 has best known to it. No clarification was given as to why it withheld such important
document, which is in its possession. The management No. 2 has stated that it has its own
registration and license issued by the Competent Authority under Section 12 of the CLARA, 1970.
It has produced the said certificate of registration and license marked as Ext. P. On perusal of
Ext.P, it is found that the same has been issued in favour of management No. 2 by District Labour
Officer (DLO), Rayagada. It was issued on the 30th October 2014 but the same is given for validity
upto the 27th January 2014. How this was happened. When the same was issued on the 30th
October 2014, the period of validity has been shown to be till 27-1-2014 retrospectively. Further it is
found that the same was renewed from time to time till the 27th January 2019. The said license
was issued for the work of earthwork, civil construction, excavation work under Chief Executive
Officer, UAIL. Both the managements have claimed that basing on the said documents, contract/
work orders were issued. The said work order is marked as Ext.Q. On perusal of Ext.Q, it is found
that the same was issued in favour of management No.2 on the 26th September 2016 for supply of
manpower for carrying out the works like to undertake supervision of materials at Stores dept., to
undertake purchase activities, to undertake logistics activities and to undertake operation of Weigh
Bridge. On comparison of Ext.P and Ext.Q, for which the same were issued in favour of management
No. 2, there is no coherence in between the two. During argument learned counsel for management
No.1 has drawn the attention of the contents found mentioned in the manuscript form in Ext.P just
below the line ‘The license shall remain in force till the 27th January 2024' and submitted that the
work order issued vide Ext.Q is comes under the purview of operations, maintenance, handling
and miscellaneous civil jobs. If the submissions of the learned counsel for the Management no.1
was accepted, then the said work is only valid till the 27th January 2024. But Ext.Q was issued on
the 26th September 2016 and is valid for seven months as found mentioned in the terms and
conditions of Ext.Q. The outcome is that there is no correlation between Ext.P and Ext.Q for the
purpose the same were issued. The managements have failed to establish the facts as averred by
them. However, there are further renewal made on different dates as found in Ext.P. But there is no
mention for what purpose the said renewals were made and it cannot be said that the purpose for
which Ext.P was issued, Ext.Q was executed between the managements. Further the managements
have failed to produce the ‘annexures’ mentioned in Ext.P and Ext.Q. Why they suppressed the
said part of the documents. Hence this court has no hesitation to draw an adverse inference against
both the managements for suppression of material facts, which are under their possession and
accordingly drawn the same. Hence on perusal of both Ext.P and Ext.Q, this Court come to the
conclusion that Ext.Q was not issued in compliance of Ext.P and the same cannot be treated to be
issued in compliance with the provisions of CLARA, 1970. Now comes to the documents of
registration issued in favour of management No.1 marked Exts. L to N series. On perusal of these
documents, it is nowhere found that the nature of work mentioned in Ext.Q, is permitted to be
15
carried out by the management No.2 during the period mentioned in Ext.Q. So it appears that the
documents marked Exts. L to Ext. Q has no correlation for the present controversy in hand and
hence not reliable. Thus this Court come to the conclusion that the so called contract/work order is
a mere paper work and sham documents only to camouflage the rights of the present workmen. In
this context reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. National Water Front Workers Union & Ors AIR 2001 SC 3527, where it
was 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 Hussainbhai’s case (supra), the petitioner
who was manufacturing ropes entrusted the work to the contractors who engaged their own workers.
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 reallife 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
16
various beneficial legislation 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 mug 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
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.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court after carefully gone through and having an elaborate discussion,
has declined to interfere in the decision taken by theHon’ble High Court of Patna in C.A. No.6023/
2001@SLP(C)No.19391/99. The said case is identical to the facts of this case. It was held as
under;
“C.A. No. 6023/2001@SLP(C) No. 19391/99 This appeal arises from the judgment and
order dated the 19th August 1999 of the High Court of Patna, Rachi Bench, Ranchi, in L. P. A. No.
214/99 (R). The Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The case arose out of the award dated October 3,
1996 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 directing the appellant to absorb
the contract labour. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the contract labourers
were not regularised to deprive them from the due wages and other benefits on par with the regular
employees under sham paper work by virtue of the sham transaction. It was also pointed out that
the workmen in other coal washery were regularized. The claim of the appellant that the washery ,
was given to the purchaser was not accepted as being a sham transaction to camouflage the real
facts. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the entire material confirmed the award and
the Division Bench declined to interfere in the LPA. We find no reason to interfere with the order
under challenge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.”
17
Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of
Bhilwara Dughd Sahakari S. Ltd. Vrs. Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and on the decision of the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Courty in the Case of FCI, Haryana Region Vrs. The Presiding
Officer, Central Govt. Ind. Tribunal and Anr. (supra).
14. The main thrust of the management No. 1 is that the present workmen are the contract labourers,
who were worked under different contractors and lastly under management No.2. As discussed
above, the contract between the management No.1 & 2 is held to be sham and bogus, resulting
that the relationship of employer and workmen has established between the management No.1 as
principal employer and the present workmen. Admittedly, the workmen were working under different
contractors since 2009 and so on. This fact found mentioned in Para. 3 of the show cause filed by
the management No.2. On perusal of conciliation failure report submitted by the ALO, Rayagada
along with the reference submitted by the appropriate Govt. and the copy of the said report marked
as Ext.27, it found that the Management No.2 has engaged the present workmen, who were working
under the contractor MMG Associates. It also took stand that the present workmen were reporting
to the UAIL authorities, who were certifying the Muster Roll of these workmen and it was only his
pay master. The said fact has not rebutted by the managements by submitting contradictory
evidence. The present workmen have claimed that they were directly appointed by the management
No. 1, but no such document has filed to support the said claim. However, the evidences of W.W.11
is aptly relevant in this regard. Learned counsel for the management No.1 has submitted that
W.W.11 is an interested witness and for that reason his testimony cannot be reliable. He submitted
that the said witness was appointed by management No.1 as Manager (Materials) and due to his
mischievous activities and unauthorized absent from duties he was called for explanation vide
Ext.H. He also submitted that FIR was lodged against the said witness. Merely an explanation was
called for and FIR was lodged against a person, is a ground, not to believe his testimony, if his
testimony otherwise relevant and reliable. So the submission that the testimony of W.W.11 is not
reliable, cannot be accepted. Fact admitted that said W.W.11 was the Manager, Materials Deptt. of
the management No. 1 as evident from Exts. A to H. During cross-examination, said witness has
stated that after the oral interviews of the present workmen, they were given their respective duties.
He also categorically identified the present workmen. Nothing contrary was inferred from the evidence
of W. W.11 during cross-examination. What he deposed before the Court, is found support from
Exts. 3, 6, 13, 14 etc. Moreover, Ext. 16 discloses that one of the present workmen namely Dilip
Achary was interviewed and posted in place of one temporary employee namely Sunil Pattanaik,
who had brought to permanent roll of UAIL, who was working under the name sake contractor Jai
Jagannath Transport. This evidence has not been discarded by the management No.1 by adducing
any contrary evidence. Ext.16 proves the effective control over the work and service conditions of
the present workmen by the management No. 1. The veracity of the documents of work/purchase
orders marked as Exts.1 to Ext.15, the existence of said documents not been denied by the
management no.1. If the contractors have the liberty to engage its own labourers, why and how the
names of the present workmen are found mentioned on the annexures of work/purchase orders
marked Exts. 3, 9, 10 and 12. Further Ext.18 discloses that W. W.11 has recommended the names
of the present workmen for their regularisation and sent it for approval to the CEO & MD, UAIL.
During cross-examination, said W.W.11 has stated that he had wrote Ext.18 in his personal capacity.
But said Ext. 18 was issued by W.W.11 in his official capacity as Manager, Materials, UAIL. So
mere saying that he has issued it in his personal capacity, is a misconception of fact, and hence
not acceptable. While answering the question of learned counsel for the management No.1,
W. W.1 might have thought that the question relates to his personal capacity, means his official
18
capacity, since he has issued it while working under the UAIL on the 2nd July 2015. Further the
identity cards issued in favour of the present workmen, marked as Ext. 25 series, though issued by
the management No. 2, the security officer of management No. 1 has put his counter signature,
which shows the control of entry of the workmen into the company was in the hands of the
management No.1. The nature of jobs, these workmen were performed, perennial in nature as
found from the documentary evidences adduced by both the parties. Even though there was change
of name sake contractors, the workmen were working throughout the year, even in absence of any
contractor. This fact proves from the documentary evidences like Exts.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and
Ext. P & Q. These documents discloses the date of retrospective effect of the contract, even
during the said period the workmen were in their continuous work. The above documents shows
that the present workmen were continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year,
some of them have completed 5 to 7 years of continuous service. Further the witnesses of the
workmen have deposed during evidence that no contractor have ever visited their place of work to
supervise their work in UAIL. The management has not produced any contrary evidence to discard
the said claim of the workmen. Further the management no.1 has not established the fact that the
contractors have requisite know-how to deal with the works performed by the present workmen,
when on perusal of the case record, it is found that the management no.1 has failed to establish the
above requirements, the irresistible conclusion that the contractors, so employed by the management
are nothing but the name sake contractors and the paper works, like work orders, are nothing but
paper arrangements. The managements have failed to clarify the said aspect. It appears that in
order to put these workmen, who are working since 2009, under the contractors, it has put the
retrospective clause in the work orders vide Exts.1 to14. This act of the management is appears to
be illegal and it has tried to deprive the legitimate claim of the workmen working since 2009, who
were presumed to be engaged by the principal employer, the management No.1 directly.
15. 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 work orders or contracts, if any, are sham and bogus, a camouflage document, only to
deprive the legitimate claim of the present workmen. The so called contractors are nothing but the
agents of the management No.1 and only name sake, become an instrumentality in the hands of
the management No.1. There exists the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee
between the management No.1 and the 2nd party workmen.
In this aspect reliance can be placed on the decision of our own Hon’ble High Court in the
case of Paradip Port Trust case (supra). The Hon’ble Court in Para.11 has held as under;
“11. So far as the effective control is concerned. There are three aspects which are not in
dispute. First aspect is entry of the workers inside the prohibited area of the Paradip Port Trust.
Unless gate passes are issued, no one can enter inside the prohibited area and therefore the
management of Paradip Port Trust has control over entry of workers inside the prohibited area.
There is evidence on record to show that all these 40 workers were being issued gate passes to
enter inside the prohibited area and only on payment of some fees. Therefore, the management of
the Paradip Port Trust has effective control with regard to entry into the prohibited area and there is
no dispute that this control was exercised on all the 40 workers. The second aspect of the case is
the nature of work executed by the said workers. There is no dispute that these workers have been
engaged for loading and unloading of materials inside the Central Store and there is no dispute that
stacking of materials inside the Central Store is done by them. So far as loading and unloading are
concerned, Shri Padhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the management may be correct in
19
saying that the management may not have control over the same, but so far as stacking of materials
inside the Central Store is concerned, the management has some control over the workers as; the
workers cannot stack materials where ever they want. The third aspect is that admittedly the workers
were paid wages on certain occasions by the management whenever they were engaged by the
management and they have been doing so far past several years.
On consideration of all these materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that not
only the management has effective control over the entry of workers into the prohibited area but
also has effective control on the movement of workers inside the Central Store. There being, no
dispute that the workers are working in the Central Store for past several years i.e. some workers
from the year 1975 and some from 1994 and the Central Store is used for storage of materials
belonging to the Paradip Port Trust, the work is perennial in nature. Now applying the principles laid
down by the Apex Court and the Gujarat High Court as quoted above, it is clear that management of
Paradip Port Trust has indulged itself in unfair labour practice by engaging 40 workers on casual
basis for years without making them permanent.”
16. The contention of the learned counsel of the workmen that all the present workmen
were engaged in the industry throughout the year and worked continuously since last 5 to 7 years
without any break. Hence he submitted that the present workmen were working in the industry
continuously throughout the year as provided under section 25B of I.D. Act, 1947. On perusal of the
evidence of the workmen, they categorically stated that they were worked for year to year, even
though their name sake contractors/paying agencies were changed. This fact is also found support
from the evidence marked Exts. 1 to 14, the work/purchase orders. It is further found from the
evidence of contractor management No. 2, who categorically averred that it engaged the present
workmen, who were working under the previous contractor Mytri Infra. It also admitted this fact
before the ALO, Rayagda-cum-Conciliation Officer, who submitted his report vide Ext. 27. Learned
Counsel of the workmen further contended that the attendance of the present workmen were entered
by the management No.1 on the Attendance Registers, maintained by it and when the workmen
given evidence by entering into the witness box, the management No.1 has ought to produce the
said registers and other documents before the Court, which are under its possession. Since the
managements had failed to produce the said documents under its possession, an adverse inference
is to be drown against it. In this aspect reliance can be placed on the decision of Director, Fisheries
Terminal Division Vrs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (2010) AIR (SCW) 542. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division (supra) while referring on the decision of R. M. Yellati
Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer AIR 2006 SC 355 in Para.14&15 held as under;
“The Hon’ ble Apex Court in the Case of R. M. Yellati (Supra) held Thus;
14. Section 25B of the Act defines “continuous service”. In terms of sub-section (2) of
Section 25B that if a workman during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer 240 days
within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. The respondent claims
he was employed in the year 1985 as a watchman and his services were retrenched in the year
1991 and during the period between 1985 to1991, he had worked for a period of more than 240
days. The burden of proof is on the respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding
twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. The law on this issue appears to be now well
settled. This Court in the Case of R.M. Yellatty Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer [(2006) 1 SCC
106], has observed:
20
However, applying general principles and on reading the aforesaid Judgments, we find
that this Court, has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show
that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping up in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent
evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily-waged earners,
there will be no letter of appointment of termination. There will also be no receipt of proof of payment.
Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before
the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment of termination, If any,
the wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would
depend thereafter on the facts of each case.”
15. Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this Court, the evidence produced
by the appellants has not been consistent. The appellants claim that the respondent did not work
for 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious as this
Court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official
documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed,
so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove that he did not
complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service. It is the
contention of the appellant that the services of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The witness
produced by the appellant stated that the respondent stopped coming to work from February, 1988.
The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows that
the respondent was working during February, 1989 also. It has also been observed by the High
Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely produced. The appellants have inexplicably
failed to produce the complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, inspite of the direction
issued by the labour court to produce the same. In fact there has been practically no challenge to
the deposition of the respondent during cross-examination. In this regard, it would be pertinent to
mention the observation of three Judge Bench of this Court in the Case of Municipal Corporation
Faridabad Vs. SiriNiwas [(2004) 8 SCC 195], where it is observed:
A Court of Law even in a case where provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. apply, may
presume or may not presume that if a party despite possession of the best evidence had not
produced the same, it would have gone against this contentions. The matter, however, would be
different where despite direction by a Court the evidence is withheld.”
Here in this case the workmen although pleaded that their attendance registers were
maintained by management No.1 and under the possession of the management No.1, but the
management No. 1 has not produced the same during hearing, which law imposes a duty to produce
the same. So an adverse inference has been drawn against the management No 1, as contended
by the workmen.
17. The further contention of the workmen is that the management No. 1 has exploited by
petting them under the name sake contractors and deprived all the benefits of a regular employee
of the management No.1. The learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that although the
name sake contractors were changed from time to time, but the workmen are the same and they
are working since long for more than 5 years but they are denied their legitimate claims. He further
submitted that the present workmen are deprived of their equal wages and other benefits, as that of
a regular employee is getting, even though they are doing the same and equal jobs of the
management No.1 as that of a regular employee. By doing so, the management has resorted to
Unfair Labour Practice as enumerated in item No.10 of the Schedule- V of the Industrial Disputes
21
Act, 1947. Before going to discuss the factual aspects of the case, the observations made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Sankar Mukharjee & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. AIR
1973 (SC) 2650 regarding practice of employing the contract labourers in establishments, where
the Hon’ble Court has held as under;
“It is surprising that more than forty years after the independence the practice of employing
labour through contractors by big Companies including public sector companies is still being accepted
as a normal feature of labour employment. There is no security of service to the workmen and their
wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. This Court in Standard-
Vacuum Refining Co.of India. Ltd. Vrs. Its Workmen, [1960] 3 SCR 466 and Catering Cleaners of
Southern Railway Vrs. Union of India & Anr., [1987] 1 SCC 700 has disapproved the system of
contract labour holding it to be ‘archaic’, ‘primitive’ and of ‘baneful nature’. The system, which is
nothing but an improved version of bonded-labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act. The Act is
an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed.”
18. On perusal of case record, it is found that the present workmen are, in spite of serving
the management for a pretty long period in perennial nature of jobs, having vast experience in
clerical jobs in different departments of management No. 1 , having requisite educational and technical
qualifications, the non-regularization of the workmen and putting them under the name sake
contractors, without following due procedure and law, by giving less salary ignoring their experience
and long service, to that of the regular employees, appears to this Court that the management No.1
has practicing Unfair Labour Practice as enumerated in item No-10 of the Fifth Schedule of the I.D.
Act, 1947. Hence such practice has to be deprecated and the workmen are entitled to their legitimate
claim. In this respect, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of
Sanker Mukharjee (supra) and our own Hon’ble Court in the Case of Paradip Port Trust (supra).
19. In Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. Brajarajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union (2024)
indiankanoon.org, SC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para. 22 & 23 as under;
“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.
23. This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen
and therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages.”
20. Admittedly, UAIL, Rayagada is a wholly privately owned industry. It is evident that the present
workmen were working there as temporary workmen but in perennial nature of jobs as evident from
the evidence of M.W.1 & 2. It is also admitted fact that the present workmen are working in the
establishment since 2009, as found from the evidences of the workmen examined. It is also admitted
by the management No. 2 that the present workmen were working with Mytri Infra with management
No.1 prior to their engagement. It is also found that the said management No. 2 still working with
management No. 1 as stated by M.W.2 during his cross-examination. So there is need of workers
in the establishment of management No.1. On analysis of the facts enumerated above, this Court
hold that there would have no problem, if the present workmen are to be absorbed in the regular
22
establishment of the management No.1 considering their long years of experience, against the
existing vacancies.
21. In view of the above discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble different High
Courts, this Court reached the conclusion that, the present workmen are not the labourers of the
name sake contractors, the management No.1 has resorted to Unfair Labour Practices by depriving
the workmen to their legitimate claims and hence this Court thought it proper to regularize the
present workmen into regular establishment of the management No.1 and to provide therewith
their service benefits as a regular employee of the management No.1. Thus the contract between
M/s Sri Ram Constructions, Indira Nagar, 3rd Line, Near Ring Road, Rayagada-765001, Odisha
(Contractor) and M/s. Utkal Alumina International Ltd., At. Doraguda, P.O. Kuchipadar, Rayagada-
765 015, Odisha (Principal Employer) is hereby held to be rose/sham and camouflage one to
screen the legitimate right of the present workmen.
22. Fact reveals that the above workmen have engaged since 2009 onwards and some
others were engaged since 2013, the fact, has not been denied by the management. The workmen
demanded their regularization from the date when they were illegally disengaged since the 31st
March 2017, i.e 1st April 2017 with back wages. From the evidences of the workmen examined, it
is found that they have already paid their wages for the work they have already done. As evident
from the case record the workmen were not allowed to enter into the premises of the management
No. 1 from the 1st April 2017, although they were willing to work. Further the claim of management
No. 2 that it has settled all their full and final settlement of dues, has not been proved by filing any
substantive evidence. Since the workmen are interested to work, they were unlawfully, without
complying the provision of law, denied with work. This Court thought it proper after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and after delving into the entire gamut of the dispute, if the
present workmen be absorbed from the date when they were denied to work. The workmen namely
Shri Bhabani Charan Satapathy and 11 others, whose services were terminated w.e.f. the 1st April
2017 are entitled to be absorbed on the rolls of M/s. Utkal Alumina International Ltd. w.e.f. the
1st April 2017. Accordingly it is ordered.
AWARD
The reference be and the same, is answered on contest against both the managements.
The management No.1 is directed to absorb the present workmen into its regular establishment
from the date of their disengagement/termination i.e the 1st April 2017, along with 50% back wages
all the consequential service benefits as that of a regular employee is getting, within two months
from the date of publication of this Award by Appropriate Govt. No order as costs.
Dictated and corrected by me.
List of witness examined on behalf of 2nd Party Workmen.
W.W. 1
: Jyotiranjan Jena
W.W. 2
: Vivek Kumar Singh
W.W. 3
: Abhisekh Kumar
W.W. 4
: Dilip Kumar Achary
W.W. 5
: Durga Prasad Pattanaik
W.W. 6
: Rajesh Kumar Panda
W.W. 7
: Ramesh Chandra Pradhan
23
W.W. 8
: Dilip Kumar Pradhan
W.W. 9
: Basudev Sahoo
W.W. 10
: Bhabani Charan Satapathy
W.W. 11
: Ramesh Chandra Parida
List of witness Examined on behalf of 1st Party Management No.1.
M.W. 1 : Somnath Sahu
List of witness Examined on behalf of 1st Party Management No.1.
M.W. 2 :Trinath Naik
List of documents marked as Exhibits for the 2nd Party Workmen.
Ext. 1
: Photocopy of work order of UAIL to Jagannath Refrigeration on dtd. 14-10-2009.
Ext. 2
: Photocopy of amended work order by UAIL on 29-6-2010.
Ext. 3
: Photocopy of amended work order on 5-4-2012.
Ext. 4
: Photocopy of work order to Jai Jagannat Transport on 15-6-2012.
Ext. 5
: Photocopy of work order of UAIL on 18-9-2012.
Ext. 6
: Photocopy of work order of UAIL on 25-9-2012.
Ext. 7
: Photocopy of work order of UAIL on 15-7-2013.
Ext. 8
: Photocopy of purchase order of UAIL on 6-12-2013
Ext. 9
: Photocopy of purchase order of UAIL on 6-5-2014
Ext. 10
: Photocopy of purchase order of UAIL on 8-5-2014
Ext. 11
: Photocopy of Purchase order of UAIL on 6-5-2014.
Ext. 12
: Photocopy of Purchase order of UAIL on 18-8-2015.
Ext. 13
: Photocopy of Purchase order of UAIL on 2-11-2015.
Ext. 14
: Photocopy of Purchase order of UAIL on 20-6-2016.
Ext. 15
: Photocopy of Table showing list of Contractors from time to time
Ext. 16
: Photocopy of file note of GM,(Commercial), UAIL on 24-8-2013.
Ext. 17
: Photocopy of GRN showing the 2nd Party Workman no.1 was the store keeper.
Ext. 18
: Photocopy of recommendation of the Manager, Materials of UAIL, Shri R.C. Parida to
Rajesh Jh, CEO & MD for regularisation of 16 numbers of employee, dt. 2-7-2015.
Ext. 19
: Photocopy of recommendation of GM, Mines, Biswaranjan Padhi for the post of store
in-charge Mines to Vijay S. Apra on 28-11-2015.
Ext. 20
: Photocopy of Grievance letter of the workmen to the D.L.O., Jeypore on 1-4-2017
Ext. 21
: Photocopy of Grievance letter to the Collector, Rayagada on 13-3-2017
Ext. 22
: Photocopy of Grievance letter to Asst. Labour Commissioner, Rayagada on 9-4-2017
Ext. 23
: Photocopy of Grievance letter of the workmen to Chairman, Human Rights Commission
on 9-4-2017.
Ext. 24
: Photocopy of Grievance letter to MD, Aditya Birla Group on 9-4-2017.
Ext. 25
: Photocopy of Identity Card Shri R.C. Pradhan.
Ext. 25/1 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Basudev Sahoo.
Ext. 25/2 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Dillip Pradhan.
Ext. 25/3 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Durga P. Patnaik.
Ext. 25/4 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Durga Patnaik.
Ext. 25/5 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Abhishek kumar.
Ext. 25/6 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri R.N. Swain.
Ext. 25/7 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Dilip Achary.
Ext. 25/8 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri B.C. Sathpathy.
Ext. 25/9 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri B.C. Sathpathy,
Ext. 25/10 : Photocopy of ldentity Card Shri Vivek K. Singh.
Ext. 25/11 : Photocopy of Identity Card Shri Jyoti Ranjan Jena.
24
Ext. 26
: Photocopy of Letter of management No.2 to the workmen for full and final settlement on
31-3-2017 posted on 16-5-2017.
Ext. 27
: Photocopy of Conciliation failure report and Supplementary report on 22-12-2017 of the
Asst. Labour Commissioner vide Letter No. 4179(3), Dt. 22-12-2017.
Ext. 28
: Photocopy of the statement of Shri G. Prakash, Manager of management No.2 during
Conciliation proceeding on 23-5-2017.
Ext. 29
: Photocopy statement of workmen during Conciliation proceeding dt.23-5-2016.
Ext. 30
: Photocopy of order dtd.12-5-2017 of the, Hon’ble Court in W.P.(c) No. 8543/2017.
Ext. 31
: Photocopy of order dtd. 9-2-2018 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(c) No1039/2018.
Ext. 32
: Photocopy of Form-D issued by the A.L.O., Rayagada in the Conciliation proceeding.
Ext. 33
: Photocopy of notice dtd. 22-8-2017 issued by the A.L.O., Rayagada, issuing notice to
parties in Conciliation Proceeding.
Ext. 34
: Photocopy of Supplementary Report dtd. 22-12-2017 submitted by ALO, Rayagada.
Ext. 35P
: hotocopy of reference made by the Govt. dt.3-5-2018.
Ext. 36
: Photocopy of my experience Certificate issued 9-10-2023 with objection by UAIL
on 2-9-2015.
Ext. 37
: Photocopy of letter issued by the Vice-President of UAIL Shri M. Ramesh Kumar
requesting to workman for donation of blood to his mail Id, given by UAIL as an employee
along with the list of employees of UAIL and others for blood donation.
Ext. 38
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of Basudev Sahoo
Ext. 39
:Photocopy of experience Certificate of B.C. Satapathy
Ext. 40
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of R.N. Swain
Ext. 41
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of R.C. Pradhan
Ext. 42
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of R.C. Panda
Ext. 43
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of D.K. Achary
Ext. 44
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of D.P. Patnaik
Ext. 45
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of G. Ananta Krishna
Ext. 46
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of Vivek Kumar Singh
Ext. 47
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of Jyoti Ranjan Jena
Ext. 48
: Photocopy of experience Certificate of Abhishek Kumar
Ext. 49
: Photocopy of work order dtd.14-10-2009 issued by M-1 in favour of Jagannath
Refrigeration.
Ext. 50
: Photocopy of work order continuance of work order dated the 14-10-2009 issued by M-
1 in favour of M/s J. Refrigeration on 29-06-2010.
Ext. 5
: Photocopy of amended work order issued on 15-6-2012 by M-1 to J. Refrigeration.
Ext. 52- Photocopy of work order dt. 15-7-2013 issued by M-1 in favour of M/s. J.
Refrigeration.
Ext. 53
: Photocopy of Purchase order on 6-12-2013 issued by M-1 in favour of M/s. J.
Refrigeration.
Ext. 54
: Photocopy of amended purchase order dt.6-6-2014 issued M-1 in favour of M/s. MMG,
Associates.
Ext. 55
: Photocopy of purchase order dt.18-8-2015 issued by M-1 in favour of M/s MMG,
Associates.
Ext. 56
: Photocopy of amended purchase order dt.18-10-2015 issued by M-1 in favour of
M/s MMG, Associates.
Ext. 57
: Copy of original notice issued by M-2 to the workman Basudev Sahoo.
Ext. 57/1 : Copy of original postal receipt and envelop.
Ext. 58
: Photocopy of Form-D on dt.15-5-2017 of Conciliation Officer-cum-Asst. Labour
Commissioner, Rayagada.
25
List of documents marked as Exhibits for the 1st Party Managements.
Ext. A
: Photocopy of application of W.W.11 to Mr. M.G Pani, Head, HR. Deptt. of UAIL on 20-1-
2006.
Ext. B
: Photocopy of application for employment on 2-5-2006.
Ext. C
: Photocopy of appointment letter dt. 19-7-2006 issued by UAIL in favour of W.W
No.11.
Ext. D
: Photocopy of Joining report dt.17-8-2006 of W.W. No.11
Ext. E
: Photocopy of Certificate of declaration submitted to UAIL on 19-8-2006.
Ext. F
: Photocopy of Confirmation of the post of W.W. No.11 Dt. 24-2-2007.
Ext. G
: Photocopy of qualification of W.W. No.11 Certificate.
Ext. H
: Photo -copy of Letter No.10030 dt. 28-5-2016 issued by UAIL.
Ext. J
: Authorization Certificate issued by Unit Head of UAIL in favour of M.W.1.
Ext. K
: Photocopy of I.D. Card of M.W.1 issued by UAIL
Ext. L
: Photocopy of Certificate of Registration issued by D.L.O., Rayagada vide his letter
No. 16/1997 for engagement of Contract Labour.
Ext. M
: Photocopy of amended Certificate of registration U/s.7 (2) of CLARA, 1970 dtd. 30-5-
2005.
Ext. N
: Photocopy of Letter No. 545, dt. 27-2-2008 issued by D.L.O., Rayagada for Amendment
of Certificate of Registration under Section 7 (2) of CLARA, 1970.
Ext. P
: Photocopy of License No.496, dt.30-2-2006 of management No.2 as renewed till 2017
vide No. 4267, dt.19-12-2017.
Ext. Q
: Photocopy of Purchase Order dt.26-9-2016 issued in favour of Sri Ram Construction
w.e.f. 1-9-16 to 31-3-2017.
Ext. R
: Photocopy of authorization Certificate issued by the MD, Sriram Construction Ltd.
BIDYADHAR PRUSTY
BIDYADHAR PRUSTY
30-03-2024
30-03-2024
Presiding Officer
Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Jeypore
Labour Court, Jeypore
[No. 4862–LESI-IR-ID-0003/2018-LESI.]
By order of the Governor
NITIRANJAN SEN
Additional Secretary to Government
Printed and Published by the Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha, Cuttack-10
Ex. Gaz. 568—173+9