The Odisha

G a z e t t e

EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 1685 CUTTACK, MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2025/JAISTHA 26, 1947

LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

The 12th June 2025

S.R.O. No. 332/2025—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) the Award, dated the 3rd May 2025 in the I.D. Case No. 36 of 2019 passed by the

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar on the Industrial Dispute between the

management of IL & FS Education & Technology Services Ltd., At GA-232, Kailash Vihar, Sailashree

Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar and 1. S/Shri Debasish Otta, S/o Late Prabhat Kumar

Otta, C/o P.S. Otta, Near Bagha Ghara, Bhanjapur, Ward No.18, Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj,

2. Harekrushna Dandapat, S/o Nalin Kumar Dandapat, At Kanjia, P.O. Sansarasaposi, Via Kuliana,

Dist. Mayurbhanj, 3. Kallol Kumar Singh, S/o Kshetra Mohan Singh, At Chadheigan, Via Kosta,

Dist. Mayurbhanj, 4. Aniruddha Mohanta, S/o Late Dullal Ch. Mohanta, At Barjupur, P.O. Damodarpur,

Via Takatpur, Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj is hereby published as in the schedule below :—

SCHEDULE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 36 of 2019

Dated the 3rd May 2025

Present :

Shri Benudhar Patra, LL.M.,

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar.

Between :

The Management of IL & FS Education

. .

First Party—Management.

& Technology Services Ltd.,

At GA-232, Kailash Vihar,

Sailashree Vihar, Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar.

And

(1) S/Shri Debasish Otta,

. .

Second Party—Workman.

S/o Late Prabhat Kumar Otta,

C/o P.S. Otta, Near Bagha Ghara, Bhanjapur,

Ward No.18, Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj.

(2) Harekrushna Dandapat, S/o Nalin Kumar Dandapat,

At Kanjia, P.O. Sansardasaposi, Via Kuliana,

Dist. Mayurbhanj.

(3) Kallol Kumar Singh, S/o Kshetra Mohan Singh,

At Chadheigan, Via Kosta,

Dist. Mayurbhanj.

(4) Aniruddha Mohanta, S/o Late Dullal Ch. Mohanta,

At Barjupur, P.O. Damodarpur, Via Takatpur, Baripada,

Dist. Mayurbhanj.

Appearances :

Shri Debi Prasad Sahu, Adv.

: For the First—Party

Shri Trilochan Lenka, Adv.

: For the Second—Parties

AWARD

The Government of Odisha in the Labour & E.S.I. Department, in exercise of powers

conferred upon it by sub-section (5) of Section 12 readwith Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ the Act’) have referred the following schedule of

dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal vide Order No. IR (I.D.)-41/12/4896/LESI, dated the 25th

June 2012 :—

Schedule

“whether the action of the management of M/s IL & FS Education & Technology Servies

Ltd. at 3rd Floor, NTBCL, Building, Toll Plaza, DND Fly Over, Noida (UP) having their

office at GA-232, Kailash Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar

in terminating the servies of School Co-ordinators, namely Shri Debasish Otta,

Shri Harekrushna Dandapat, Shri Kallol Kumar Singh and Shri Aniruddha Mohanta

with effect from the 10th January 2016 is legal and /or justified ? If not to what relief are

these workmen entitled to ?”

2. The factual matrix of the dispute as culled out from the conciliation failure report is that

on a complaint being rasied by the second party members on the 8th March 2016 stating that

despite their rendering continuous service under the first party for more than one and half years

they have been terminated from employment with effect from the 10th January 2016 and in their

place new hands were picked up, the Conciliation Officer-cum-District Labour Officer, Mayurbhanj

initiated a conciliation proceeding, but as the parties remained firm in their respective view the

conciliation ended in a failure, which culminated into the present reference.

3. Pursuant to the reference, all the second party members filled a joint claim statement

stating therein, inter alia, that they all joined under the first party as School

Co-ordinator-cum-Computer Operators on the 2nd April 2014, except Shri Harekrushna Dandapat,

who joined as such on the 21st August 2014 and were assigned with duties in different Government

Schools in the district of Mayurbhanj where they continued till, dated the 9th January 2016, despite

the fact that they were not being paid their salary regularly. It is alleged that although they were

covered under the E.S.I. and E.P.F. Schemes contributions were being deducted from their salary

towards the E.S.I. and E.P.F., yet the same were not deposited by the first party before the concerned

authorities, for which after several demand when the first party paid a deaf ear to their grievance,

all of them along with other workers went on a strike on the 16th November 2015. It is further

alleged that as a consequence of strike for fulfilment of their demand the first party bore grudge

against the second party members and ultimately on the 10th January 2016 when they went to

perform their respective duty they were denied employment and were told that their services have

been terminated.

According to the second party members, they were responsible for computer education of

students, maintenance of the hardware, software and accessories at the School and they used to

provide assistance to the teachers in the matter of use of IT infrastructure and thus they are ‘

workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and so also the first party is an ‘industry’

within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, besides the refusal of their employment constitutes

an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of the Act. It has been specifically averred in the claim

statement that their refusal of employment/termination was neither preceded with any departmental

action nor they were served with any notice or in lieu thereof notice pay and compensation which

is a mandatory requirement for their rendering continuous service for more than 240 days under

the first party. It has also been alleged by the second party members that at the time of their refusal

of employment the first party in gross violation of the provisions of the Act allowed junior workers to

continue in employment and so also after their termination engaged new persons to perform the

duties of the second party members. In the background, as above, the second party members

have prayed for their reinstatement in services with full back wages, continuity of service; as they

have not been gainfully employed elsewhere and are facing a lot of financial problem to maintain

themeselves as well as their family members.

4. The first party management entered contest in dispute and filed its written statement

stating, inter alia, that the disputants involved herein being not “Workmen” and so also the first

party not an “Industry” within the meaning of the Act, the reference as laid is not maintainable.

Elaborating the stand, it is asserted in the written statement that the disputants during the tenure of

employment were assigned with duties for imparting computer education to students as well as

the teachers of the Schools and as per the settled principles of law the “teachers” being not

covered under the definition of “workmen” as prescribed under Section 2 (s) of the Act, the dispute

can no way be held to be maintainable. With regard to the stand of the first party that its establishment

does not fall under the definition of an “industry”, it is averred that consequent upon its selection as

the successful tenderer and letter of Award, dated the 12th September 2013 of Orissa Knowledge

Corporation Limited (OKCL) to implement the project under built, own operate and transfer (BOOT)

model for a total No. of 3409 Schools in the State of Odisha for five years, there are requirment of

school co-ordinators besides other staffs for deployment by the first party management and

accordingly the management started the recuitment process. The objective of the first party

management is to make an learning an experience-led, interactive, insight-based and stimulating

journey and it has designed wide range of products for children and adults to provide learners with

a rich, multi sensorial experience in learning including scientific and creative mixed of innovative

hardware , technology based instructional materials, workshops, teacher training, printed content

and material that incorporates video, audio and multimedia technology. With the above aim and

objectives, it is asserted, there is reason to state that the activities of the first party are coming

within the purview of “ industry”.

As regards the merit of the claim, the first party while admitting the employment of the

disputants as School co-ordinators in the district of Mayurbhanj, has taken a definite stand that

their employment for a fixed period of employment i.e. for a period of 11 months subject to renewal

basing upon their performance and further their appointment as such was governed purely by the

contract between the company and the School co-ordinators. It is stated that as per of the terms of

the appointment letters, the disputants were allowed to avail maximum of one day leave in a month

with prior permission of concern Head Master of the School and their immediate supervisors. It is

stated that when the disputants were being continued under the employment with the above

stipulations, during the first week of the November 2015 few School co-ordinators remained on

unauthorised leave and started misleading others even they went to the extent of damaging the

property of the first party for which FIR was lodged against the erring employees and after protracted

counselling and issuance of show cause for such misdemeanour though most of the School

co-ordinators resumed their work, yet 949 Nos. of School co-ordinators (including the present

disputants) did not resume their job and continued to remain absent unauthorisedly, even though

they had submitted their show cause reply through E-mail. It is stated that as during the academic

year the students enrolled in the Schools suffered adversely due to the unauthorised absence of

the School co-ordinators, the first party was left with no other option than to terminate the services

of the disputants and to appoint School co-ordinators through transparent online process to fill up

the vacancies. In the aforesid background it is averred in the written statement that the contravention

of the provisions of the Act by the first party as alleged by the disputants is not tenable, accordingly

the first party has prayed to answer the reference in the negative as against the disputants.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, as discussed above, the following issues emerge for

consideration :—

ISSUES

(i)

Whether the case is maintainable ?

(ii)

Whether Shri Debasish Otta, Shri Harekrushna Dandapat, Shri Kallol Kumar Singh

and Shri Aniruddha Mohanty are workmen as defined under Section 2(S) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 ?

(iii)

Whether the action of the management of M/s IL & FS Education & Technology

Services Ltd. 3rd Floor, NTBCL, Building, Toll Plaza, DND Fly Over, Noida (UP)

having their office at GA-232, Kailash Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of School Co-ordinators, namely

Shri Debasish Otta, Shri Harekrushna Dandapat, Shri Kallol Kumar Singh and

Shri Aniruddha Mohanta with effect from the 10th January 2016 is legal and/or

justified ?

(iv)

If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to ?

5. In order the substantiate their respctive stand, while the second party examined one of

its disputants namely, Shri Debasish Otta as WW 1 and relied on xerox copies of some documents

marked Ext. 1 to 12, the first party also examined one witness on its behalf, who is the Assistant

vice President and Regional Head of the first party, and placed reliance on Xerox copies of certain

documents marked Ext. A to W.

FINDINGS

7. Issue Nos. (i & ii) The findings on both the issues being interlinked with each other the

same are taken up for consideration simultaneously for the sake of convenience. On the question

of maintainability of the reference, the first party has taken a stand that the disputants are not

workmen. It being one of the grounds touching the maintainability issue I would like to delve into

such question first.

Before discussing the evidence available on record, it would be apt to have a glimpse over

the definition of “workmen” as assigned in the Act. Section 2 (s) of the Act defines workmen as

follows :—

“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory

work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,

and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose

dismissal discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include

any such person :—

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of

1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a

prison, or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv)

who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten

thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties

attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly

of a managerial nature.

The definition of ‘workman’ as gives under Section 2(s) of the Act came up for consideration

before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Maini Vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited

and others (1994) 3 SCC 510 and emphasising on the legislative intention behind the definition of

‘workman’, the Hon’ble Apex Court have made the following observations at Para. 9 of the

judgment :—

“9 After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case

and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us

that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of

duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to

the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not

possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to

the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases.

When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition

of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as

workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or

commerical organizations quite a large number of employees are often requried to

do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes neccessary to determine

under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether

he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it.

8. Keeping in view the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of the Act,

now it is to be scrutinised on the basis of evidence available on record as to nature of duties of the

second party members in order to arrive at a conclusion on the point. In order to substantiate their

stand that all the second party members are coming within the definition of ‘workmen’, WW 1 has

stated in his examination in chief that the second party members were appointed as School

Co-ordinators-cum-Computer Operators and by virtue of their continuing as such they were covered

under the E.P.F. and E.S.I. Schemes and therefore, They come under the definition of ‘workmen’.

In Para. 3, however, he has stated that the members of the second party were responsible for

computer education of students; for maintenance of the hardware, software and accessories at

the School and they were required to provide assistance to the Teachers in use of I.T infrastructure.

In that context, he proved Exts. 1 to 4, the copy of their appointment letters as School Co-ordinators

and Annexures-A thereof (enclosed to each of the documents marked Exts. 1 to 4) disclose the

nature of duties assigned to the second party members. It has been elicited from his

cross-examination that the second party members were imparting refresher training to the

concerned subject teachers and they were ensuring responsibilites assigned under Clause 5 of

the heading “Roles and Responsibilities of Exts.1 to 4. Nothing reveals from his evidence, nor is

any document produced on behalf of the second party members showing them to have worked

under the first party as Computer Operators. Clause 3, 4 and 5 of the Annexures to Exts.1 and 4

are suggestive of the main roles and responsibilities of the second party members which includes

their real nature of duties, such as to impart training to the students and teachers on IT skills as per

the school syllabus and time table; to ensure regular refresher training to the concerned teachers

and to ensure that all the nominated teachers in each school have been trained to use ICT Labs

and relevant departmental software. The roles and responsibilities assigned on the School

Co-ordinators, as deposed to by WW 1, coupled with the documentary evidence, as discussed

above, leaves no room for dobut that the members of the second party are coming within the

purview of ‘teachers’. It being the settled principles of law that imparting of education cannot be

considered as skilled or unskilled; manual or supervisory, or technical or clerical work owing to the

fact that they educate the children, moulds their character, builds up their personality and makes

them fit to become responsible citizens, the clerical works, if any, they may do, is only incidental to

their principal work of teaching, this Tribunal while upholding the argument advanced on behalf of

the first party answers the issues in the negative as against the second party members.

9. Issue Nos. (iii & iv)—In view of the discussions held under Issue Nos. (i) and (ii), analysis

on Issue Nos. (iii) & (iv) becomes academic. The undisputed facts, as culled out from the materials

available on record, reveal that all the second party members were appointed as School

Co-ordinators under fixed period of contract for implementation of the ICT Schemes in allotted

Schools across the State of Odisha with certain terms and conditions. It is also not disputed that

during their continuance the second party members staged a strike on the 16th November 2015

and after issuance of show cause notices services of the second party members were terminated

resorting to Clause 20 of the appointment letters, which envisages that in case of non-performance

and indiscipline during the period of the agreement the company reserves the right to terminate

their contract without serving any notice. Staging strike, continuance of the same and allowing

Union to form amongst teachers as in the present case, in my view, was nothing but an act to

create friction in the society leading to a great loss to the students, accordingly on merit also, the

second party members have failed to substantiate their claim to be either legal or justified and

thereby their entitlements to the relief (s) claimed.

The issue are answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

BENUDHAR PATRA

3-05-2025

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

[No.5454—LESI-IR-ID-0034-2025-LESI]

By order of the Governor

MADHUMITA NAYAK

Special Secretary to Government

Printed and Published by the Director, Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha, Cuttack-10

Ex. Gaz. 895–173+9