The main legal point established in the judgment is that the work performed by the workmen is permanent and perennial in nature, and the management has violated the provisions of the CLRA Act by engaging the workmen for such work. The court directs the management to treat the workmen as employees of the principal employer and pay wages and benefits in accordance with the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

In all these three writ petitions the award passed in I.D. case Nos. 19, 50 & 43 of 1987 are under challenge both by the side of Management and the workmen and also for issuance of direction upon the Management to release the back wages, hence all the three writ petitions are taken up together for their final disposal.

O.J.C. No. 6952 of 1994:

This writ petition has been preferred by the Management of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Talcher assailing part of the award passed by Industrial Tribunal in I.D. case No.43 of 1987(C) holding therein the action of the Management in retrenching the employees illegal and unjustified and as such they have been directed to be re-instatement forthwith but without back wage.

O.J.C. No. 4720 of 1994:

This writ petition has been filed by Talcher Coal Mines Employees’ Union assailing the part of the award passed in I.D. case Nos.19 and 50 of 1987 whereby and where under the demand of the Union to treat the workmen as the employees of the Management of Talcher Colliery of Central Coalfield Ltd., Talcher is held not to be legal and justifiable.

O.J.C. No. 3799 of 1994:

This writ petition has been filed by the Talcher Coal Mines Employees’ Union assailing part of the award passed in I.D. case Nos. 19, 50 & 43 of 1987 whereby and where under the back wages have been denied.

2. The brief fact of the case of the Management is that its Talcher Colliery runs an underground mine in which coal is extracted through its regular and permanent employees for certain ancillary and incidental jobs which are of casual and temporary in nature, some contractors are also engaged who in turn deploy their own employees for such work. Most of the contractor’s jobs are of short duration and are not permanent and/or perennial in nature. These workers are being provided by the contractors to meet out the intermittent jobs and as such there is no employer – employee relationship in between the workmen and the petitioner – management.

3. While on the other hand the case of the workmen is that they are discharging the job which is permanent and perennial in nature such as drilling of wholes and preparation of blasting, etc. and are paid low wages @ Rs.8/- to Rs.10/- per day. Their grievance is that they be paid at par with the regular employee. The grievance having not been redressed, they have raised dispute through its Union, conciliation having failed, the appropriate Government has made a reference to the effect that:-

“Whether the demand of the Union that Sri Antaryami Garnaik and 129 others should be treated to be the workmen employed by the management of Talcher Colliery of Central Coalfields ltd., Talcher and be paid wages and other benefits in accordance to NCWA – III is justified? If so, from what date?”

The reference has been referred before the Tribunal which was registered as I.D. case No. 19 of 1987(C). The second copy of the said reference having been received by the Tribunal the same was registered as I.D. case No. 50 of 1987, hence I.D. case Nos. 19 and 50 of 1987(C) are based upon one reference. The second reference was made by order dtd.20th April, 1987 and the same is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the Management of CCL, Talcher in retrenching Sri Dinabandhu Sahoo and 46 others w.e.f. December, 1985 and Sri Pabitra Pradhan and 13 other workmen w.e.f. March, 1986 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

4. The Tribunal in order to adjudicate and answer the reference heard the parties, evidence have been laid and thereafter award has been passed on 16th December, 1993 whereby and where under the reference in connection with I.D. case Nos. 19 & 50 of 1987 (C) has been answered against the workmen, while the reference in I.D. case No. 43 of 1987 has been answered in favour of the workmen. The Tribunal while answering the reference in I.D. case Nos.19 and 50 of 1987 (C) has passed an award holding therein that the demand of the Union to treat the workmen as the em