The Odisha
G a z e t t e
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 430 CUTTACK, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2025/MAGHA 28, 1946
LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 11th February 2025
S.R.O. No. 141/2025—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947) the Award, dated 21st December 2024 passed in the I.D. Case No.15 of 2021 by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to whom the industrial dispute between the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Kalinganagar Industrial
Complex, Dist. Jajpur and the General Secretary, Mesco Steels ‘Workers’ Union,
At. Managovindapur, Kalinganagar, P.O. Ranagadi, Dist. Jajpur, 2. The President, Kalinga Nagar
Sramik Sangha, 3. The Secretary, Kalinga Nagar Mazdoor. (Second Party Union Nos. 2 and 3 were
impleaded vide Order No.11 dated the 4th May 2022 of this Court) All are present
At. Managovindapur, Kalinganagar, P.O. Danagadi, Dist. Jajpur was referred for adjudication is
hereby published in the schedule below.
SCHEDULE
IN THE LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 15 of 2021
Dated the 21st December 2024
Present :
Smt. Meenakashi Priyadrashinee,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
Between :
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
. .
First Party—Management
M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.,
Kalinganagar Industrial Complex,
Dist. Jajpur.
2
And
1. The General Secretary,
. .
Second Party—Unions
Mesco Steels Workers’ Union,
At. Managovindapur,
Kalinganagar, P.O. Danagadi,
Dist. Jajpur.
2. The President,
Kalinga Nagar Sramik Sangha.
3. The Secretary,
Kalinga Nagar Mazdoor
(Second Party Union Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded
vide Order No. 11, dated the 4th May 2022 of this Court)
All are present At. Managovindapur, Kalinganagar,
P.O. Danagadi, Dist. Jajpur.
Appearances :
Shri A. Singh & Associate Advocates
. . For the 1st Party—Management
None
. . For the Second Party—Union No.1
Shri S. K. Das & Associates, Advocates
. . For the Second Party—Union Nos. 2 & 3
AWARD
The Government of Odisha in the Labour and E.S.l. Department in exercise of powers
conferred upon it by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) have referred the following dispute for
adjudication by this Court vide their Memo No. 6918/ LESI, dated the 17th August 2021.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.,
Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, Dist. Jajpur in notifying the suspension of work in
their industry w.e.f. the 12th February 2020 ‘C’ Shift indicating therein to adopt the
principles of ‘No work No Pay’ for the period of suspension of work is legal and/or
justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?
2. At the outest it is apt to mention here that the original second party union i.e., the Union
No. 1 mentioned above neither filed his statement of claim despite direction of the appropriate Govt.
nor participated during hearing of the case. The second party union Nos.2 and 3, however, after
their addition as parties to the present case basing upon their respective petitions, have filed their
claim statements separately with regard to the order of reference. But, ongoing through the
statement of claims filed on behalf of the Union Nos. 2 and 3 through their respective President and
Secretary, it appears that almost all the averments made therein are same.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the second party Union Nos. 2 and 3 as emerge
from their separate claim statement is that they are Trade Unions registered under. The Trade
Union Act’ having Registration Nos. CTC-686 and CTC-457 respectively and functioning in MESCO
Branch. The aim and objects of the unions is to work for all round development of their members
of MESCO Branch. So, the case of the unions espousing the cause of their members is that the
management used to earn huge profit out of production and service rendered by the workers as
well, but it did not pay the statutory dues viz., Bonus, PF etc. to its employees/ members of the
3
unions even though there were several discussion on several occasions made in between the
management and the unions to that effect. The claim is advanced that despite their consistent
demands the management neither paid their statutory dues nor paid their monthly wages so also
other benefits. Rather, the management in order to harass the workers and to suppress the
demands of the unions either, all of a sudden on the 12th February 2020 published a notice for
‘suspension of work’ from ‘C’ shift of the 12th February 2020 thereby ascribing certain false and
baseless reasons. Vide such notice the management also adopted the principle of ‘No Work No
Pay’. Immediate thereafter, the workers had met the representatives/officers of the management,
but they did not get any satisfactory reason of the suspension of work, rather they were forbidden
to discharge their duties from ‘C’ shift of the 12th February 2020. According to the unions such
notice for ‘suspension of work’ is lockout notice as per the definition of Section 2 (I) of the I.D. Act
and the management having failed to comply the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 while declaring
suspension of work by the above notice the same is neither legal nor justified. Consequently, the
union No.1 raised a dispute before the concerned DLO for an amicable settlement which
culminated into the present reference.
3. On receipt of notice, the first party management entered its appearance by filing written
statement thereby challenging the maintainability of the present reference in the eye of law and
facts. In addition to it, the management has also taken a stand that the appropriate Govt. while
referring the present case in dispute has not verified any materials/documents showing existence
of industrial dispute, for which the present reference is bad in law. On such counts the
management, at the threshold, has prayed for the dismissal of the case. It is asserted by the
management that during last five years it had incurred/faced huge loss. Apart from that the plant of
the company was not functioned fully for certain period owing to want of Consent to Operate from
the Govt. so also from other Licenses. However, there was approval to operate the Sinister Plant
only. It is superficially contended by the management that it has applied for Consent to Operate the
plant, but till date it has not been obtained CTO from the Govt. Meanwhile the tenure of Mineral
License granted to the MISL Plant came to be expired on the 26th December 2019. As a
consequence thereof the activities of MISL Plant have come to a standstill position. While the
matter stood thus the workers not only stopped racks from railway siding but also resorted to
abrupt work stoppage from the 21st January 2020 which occasioned the management to notify
suspension of work of MISL with effect from the 12th February 2020, ‘C’ shift until further order
thereby adopting ‘No Work No Pay’ principle. Further contention of the management is that on the
25th May 2022 i.e., during pendency of the present case, a meeting pertaining to the instant dispute
in question was held under the Chairmanship of ADM, Kalinga Nagar in presence of IIC, Kalinga
Nagar, P.S., authorities of the management, the Presidents and Secretaries of different unions
and the meeting was ended with the following decisions :—
(i) the workers shall not demand wages for the period from the date of lifting of suspension
of work till resumption of plant production;
(ii) the workers shall not obstruct railway siding operation;
(iii) the management has to pay ex gratia of Rs. 4,000 per month of June and July 2022;
(iv) the plant will restart its production soon after obtaining Consent to Operate and mineral
trading license within six to eight months; and
(v) the workmen and their unions will not resort to any agitation till restart of plant production.
4
The management while carried out the decisions taken in the above meeting has also
issued notice to all concerned about lifting of suspension of work, but the production of the plant
has not yet been resumed due to want of Consent to Operate and Mineral Trading License. In the
backgrounds, as afore stated, the management has asserted that the present claim of the unions
is redundant and liable to be rejected.
4. The Union Nos. 1 and 2 filed their respective rejoinders to the WS of the management
asserting therein, inter alia that the reference is very much maintainable. They are not aware if the
management has applied for CTO or not. The Unions while admitted to have attended the meeting
have categorically stated that owing to non-payment of dues, the State Govt. has not renewed
Mineral Trade License and granted COT as well. It is alleged, the management has not taken any
step to resume its function. So, the Unions have prayed to allow their claims.
5. Taking into consideration the pleadings advanced by the parties, the following issues
have been settled for proper adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the action of the management of M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.
Kalinganagar Industrial Complex, Dist. Jajpur in notifying the suspension of work
in their industry w.e.f. the 12th February 2020, ‘C’ shift indicating therein to adopt
the principles of No Work No Pay for the period of suspension of work is legal
and/or justified ?
(ii) Whether the proceeding is now redundant in view of the alleged settlement dated
the 25th May 2022 ?
(iii) If not, to what other relief the workmen are entitled ?
6. Contesting parties have led evidence in shape of oral and documentary evidence in
order to substantiate their respective cases. The 2nd Party Union No. 2 when adduced oral
evidence with the help of two witnesses as WW Nos. 1 and 2 the Union No. 3 adduced oral
evidence through one witness as WW No. 3 and Exts. 1 to 11 are marked on their behalf.
Per contra, the management has examined three numbers of witnesses on its behalf and
placed reliance on seven numbers of documents which are marked as Exts. A and G respectively.
FINDINGS
7. Issue Nos.(i to iii)— These issues are taken-up for determination simultaneously
being interlinked with each other.
Before going to discuss, if any, on the above issues, it is trite to mention here that the
management in its WS set up a claim to the effect that the present reference is not maintainable
on various grounds. But, in the matter of maintainability of the reference, it is pertinent to say that
in the case of Nityananda Panigrahi V. General Manager (Mines) M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
and another: 2006 (Supp.-l) OLR 933, the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to held that
“Reference-Validity/maintainability of Industrial Tribunal is a creation of statute and it gets jurisdiction
on the basis of a reference-A tribunal cannot go into the question of validity of a reference”.
In view of such clear position of law this Court has no jurisdiction to test the competency
of the State Govt. to refer the present dispute.
5
It is borne out from the pleadings as well as evidence advanced by the parties in the present lis
that w.e.f. the 12th February 2020 the management declared suspension of work of its
factory/company vide notice dated the 12th February 2020 with ‘No Work No Pay’ principle, Ext. B
and as a corollary thereof a meeting was held on the 25th May 2022 by the District Administration
i.e., ADM, Kalinga Nagar in presence of the present Unions mentioned above, the representatives
of the management, ALO, Jajpur Road, IIC, Kalinga Nagar Police Station and other unions.
But, it is not out of place to mention that there is no provision under the I.D. Act regarding
‘suspension of work’. Rather, there are provisions regarding layoff, lockout and closure. The
theoretical distinction between a closure and a lockout is well settled. In the case of a closure, the
employer does not merely close down the place of business, but he opposes the business itself;
and so, the closure indicates the final and irrevocable termination of the business itself. Lockout,
on the other hand, indicates the closure of the place of business and not the closure of business
itself. It is to be noted that closure is a matter of policy of the employer, whether to run his business
or not. The employer may close down an industrial activity bona fide on such eventualities as
suffering continuous loss, no possibility of a revival of the business or an inability for various other
reasons. The word closure means, perpetual, i.e. business can under no circumstances be revived
till eternity.
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner management declared suspension of
work w.e.f. the 12th February 2020 and admittedly, the petitioner management has not resorted to
termination of its employees. Therefore such suspension of work may be construed as lockout. It
is therefore, becomes necessary to mention the definition of ‘lockout’ as incorporated in Section
2(I) of the I.D. Act. As per Section 2(I) of the Act, lockout means the [temporary closing of a place
of employment] or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any
number of persons employed by him. Besides that, under the I.D. Act, “suspension of work” and
“lockout” are essentially the same concept, meaning when an employer temporarily closes a
workplace or refuses to continue employing workers effectively stopping work at the establishment;
this is defined under Section 2(I) of the Act. “Suspension of work” can occur due to various factors
beyond employer control like lack of raw materials, power outages, or natural calamities, while a
“lockout” is always initiated by the employer as a deliberate tactic. A “suspension of work” might be
temporary due to unavoidable circumstances with no intention to pressure employees, whereas a
“lockout” is intended to exert pressure on employees to accept certain demands. While both can
be subject to legal regulations under the I.D. Act, a “lockout” may face stricter penalties if deemed
unjustified or used as a tool of coercion.
In view of such definition under the provisions of I.D. Act it can be inferred that there was
lockout declared by the management in its factory and it termed as ‘suspension of work’. Therefore,
the suspension of work resorted by the management amounts to lockout.
On the face of above, now whether the lockout/suspension of work was rightly or wrongly
declared by the management w.e.f. the 12th February 2020 is the bone of contention. In order to
overcome the dispute in question this Court has to go through the evidence adduced orally as well
as documentary by the parties in the instant case. On a common reading of the pleadings advanced
by the parties, it is found that there is no serious dispute between the parties to the effect that the
members attached to the present Unions are workmen and the management is. an Industrial
Establishment as per the provisions enumerated under I.D. Act, for which discussion further to
that effect will be redundant. It also emerges from the case record that there were more than 100
employees working under the management. So, on that score, the management is also held to be
6
an industrial establishment. That apart, while the plea of the second party unions is that declaration
of such suspension of work arose out of the fault of the management i.e., not complying the
statutory deposits as well as other factors, the first party while resisting such assertion has taken
the stand by referring Ext. B (xerox copy of notice of suspension of work) that due to want of
Consent to Operate the plant from the Govt., expiry of mineral license tenure and stoppage of
works by the workers from the 21st February 2020 so also racks from railway siding it has no other
option than to notify Ext. B. Admittedly, except Ext. B, no other specific document is placed on
behalf of the management with regard to the stoppage of works by the workers from the 21st
February 2020 so also racks from railway siding. However, Ext. A (which is emerged as the xerox
copy of proceeding of the meeting held on the 25th May 2022) give a clear presumption that the
Unions wherein and whereupon agreed not to have obstructed railway siding operation. Now it is
next to scan the cross-examinations of the management-witnesses i.e., MW Nos. 1 to 3. The
cross-examinations of these three witnesses conclusively reveal that regarding renewal of Mineral
Trading License a case is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the management had not
deposited the required funds as directed by the Hon’ble Court. The cross-examination of MW Nos.
1 to 3 when, read concurrently, it is further seen that the Govt. has not supplied the CTO to the
management as it has not fulfilled the condition and that as the management is not permitting the
present workers to discharge their duties under it the present workers are entitled to all the reliefs
claimed by them. Besides that, Ext. 10 is a document (i.e., information obtained through RTI Act)
wherein it has been mentioned that consent to operate in respect of M/s Mideast Integrated Steels
Ltd., for the year 2020-21 had not been granted, as the Unit had not paid the environment dues
charged by the Director of Mines, Govt. of Odisha based on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for illegal mining of Roida-I of MESCO. From the discussion made above, it is found
that both the management and the workers are jointly liable towards declaration of suspension of
work.
What have been stated above it is also evincible from the pleading of the management that
the alleged demand of the Unions is a stale claim’ as per the decision taken in the meeting dated
the 25th May 2022 mentioned above. In the case at hand, the management is armed with the copy
of proceeding of meeting held on dated the 25th May 2022 which is figured/marked as Ext. A.
Needless to say that the contesting Union No. 2 raised objection to Ext. A during its marking as
exhibits on the ground that the members of the second party union No. 2 were not present in that
meeting. But, surprisingly the second party union No.2 in its rejoinder at Para. 9 admitted to have
taken part in the meeting dated the 25th May 2022. Therefore, the above ground taken by the
second party Union at the time of marking of Ext. A is inconsequential. It is true that Ext. A shows a
meeting on the issues pertaining to M/s Mesco Steel Ltd. raised by its various Unions was held on
the 25th May 2022 (during pendency of the case) in the office chamber of ADM, Kalinga Nagar, but
it is not found therefrom that any discussion as to the period from the 12th February 2020 (when
suspension of work with ‘No Work No Pay’ was notified) to the 25th May 2022 (i.e., the proposal
date of lifting of suspension of work with ‘No Work No Pay’) was made. Nonetheless the fact as
reveals from Ext. A remains that the workmen coupled with their unions agreed not to demand
wages for the period from the date of lifting of suspension of work till resumption of plant production
and the management as per the representatives of the Unions also agreed to pay ex gratia @ Rs.
4000 per month to each workmen for the month of June & July, 2022. In the said meeting, it has
also been discussed that when the 2nd railway siding will start, the management and workmen will
sit and discuss the amount of exgratia to be paid. On this aspect, it is here argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the management that the decisions taken in the meeting dated the 25th May
7
2022 have been carried out. In this regard looking to the documents marked vide Exts. C and F
which are xerox copies of notices dated the 25th May 2022 of the management and calculation
sheet towards payment of ex gratia to plant non-executives, it is found that the management pursuant
to the meeting dated the 25th May 2022 lifted the notice for suspension of work dated the 12th
December 2020 on the very day of meeting vide Ext. C and the management paid sum amount as
ex gratia to its non-executive employees for 14 months from September, 2021 and March 2024 as
evident from Ext. F. Ext. F has been marked without objection and from Ext. F it further reveals that
ex gratia was paid to the non-executives for some moths of suspension period so also for some
months during the pendency of the case. It is trite to mention here that the Unions when in one
hand objected to Ext. C whereby the management lifted its notice of suspension of work dated
the12th February 2020 as per the outcome of the meeting dated the 25th May 2022 on the other
hand put a suggestion to the management-witness (MW No.2) during his cross-examination to the
effect that after lifting of the suspension of work by the management the present workers are not
allowed to work under it to which he categorically admitted. So, such suggestion of the Unions
infers a presumption that the management has already lifted the suspension of work vide Ext. C. At
this stage, at the cost of repetition it is profitable to reproduce the decision made vide point Nos. 3
& 5 in the meeting dated the 25th May 2022 which as follows:
“Considering the request of the workmen and their Unions, the management has agreed for
lifting of suspension of work with ‘No Work No Pay’ w.e.f. today i.e., on the 25th May 2022 subject
to a condition workmen will not claim their wages from the date of lifting of suspension of work till
resumption of plant production as at present plant is not having CTO and mineral license. However,
workmen will have mutual discussion with management after plant production regarding arrear of
this period.
The Mesco Steel Plant will restart its production soon after obtaining Consent To Operate
(CTO) and Mineral Trading License within 6-8 months”.
But, the circumstance of the present case reveals that due to the fault of the management
it yet to obtain CTO and Mineral Trading License; as admitted after lifting of the suspension of work
by the management the present workers are not allowed to work under it and that no discussion
was made over suspension period i.e., from the 12th February 2022 to 25th May 2022.
With regard to the circumstances of the present case reference can be made to the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Lamp Ltd. Vrs. Their Workmen, 1969 (38) FJR
20 (SC), wherein it was held that ‘even if a lockout was not justified, if the workmen were also
blameworthy and it was their conduct, which brought about the lockout, there should be apportionment
of blame between the management and workmen and that the extent to which blame thereof is to
be apportioned between the management and the workmen is a matter which is required to be
considered by the Tribunal’.
In view of the discussion made above this Court is of considered view that both the
management and the employees are to be equally blamed for the prolonged continuance of the
suspension of work and therefore apportionment of the blame at 50 per cent each between the
management and workers is seems justified. There is no material so show that the workers made
themselves available to perform their duties and had requested the management to lift the
suspension of work and though efforts made to bring about an amicable solution to the dispute. On
the other hand, the management had made no efforts to call the unions for negotiations across the
table and that there was no justification for continuing the suspension of work for such a long
period i.e. from the 12th February 2020 to the 25th May 2022 (i.e., the proposal date of lifting of
8
suspension of work with ‘No Work No Pay’). Even there was nothing on record to show that the
management had taken any steps for avoiding such suspension of work/ lockout, as the
management could have invoked the assistance of the conciliator or the Labour Officer in that
regard and that even if the declaration of suspension of work from the 12th February 2020 is legal
then also its continuation for such a long period to the 25th May 2022 could not be justified in the
circumstances of the case. In matters relating to apportionment of blame between the management
and the workers there can be no inflexible formula or rigid yardstick to determine the percentage of
apportionment, and the extent of apportionment of blame would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. Be that as it may, this Court feels it appropriate to apportion the
blame at 50 per cent on the management.
This Court, accordingly while holding the action of the management in notifying the suspension
of work in their industry w.e.f the 12th February 2020 ‘C’ shift indicating therein to adopt the principles
of ‘No work No Pay’ for the period of suspension of work is neither legal nor justified thinks it
appropriate to direct the Management to pay 50% of wages/salary to the concerned workmen/
workers as per their last drawn salary from the 12th February 2020 (i.e., declaration date of
suspension of work) to the 25th May 2022 (i.e., the date of lifting of suspension of work) for the
above reason vis-a-vis for the reason that unions agreed no to demand wages for the period from
the date of lifting of suspension of work till resumption of plant production as evident from Ext. A.
The management is directed to comply the award within a period of two months of the date of
publication of the award, failing which the amount’ of 50% wages/salary as awarded in favour of the
workmen/workers would carry a simple interest of 6% per annum till it is paid to them. The
management is at liberty to adjust the amount, if any, paid to such concerned workers during the
period from the 12th February 2020 to the 25th May 2022 towards their salary.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Dictated and corrected by me.
MEENAKASHI PRIYADRASHINEE
MEENAKASHI PRIYADRASHINEE
21-12-2024
21-12-2024
Presiding Officer,
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
[No.1481—LESI-IR-ID-0053/2021-LESI]
By order of the Governor
MADHUMITA NAYAK
Additional Secretary to Government
Printed and Published by the Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha, Cuttack-10
Ex. Gaz. 2216–173+9