Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA and SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela - Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) Nos. 10540, 5859, 5861, 5862, 5863, 5864, 5865, 5866, 5867, 5868, 5869, 5870, 5871, 5872, 5873, 5874, 5875, 10541, 10543, 10544, 10545, 10546, 10547, 10548, 10555, 10838, 10849, 10840, 10841, 10843, 10844, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10850, 10867, 16206, 16208, 16213, 16215 & 10839 of 2015, O.J.C. No. 729 of 1999, W.P.(C) Nos.14098, 14099, 14100, 14101, 14102, 14103, 14104, 14105, 14106, 14107, 14108, 14109, 14110, 14111, 14112, 14113, 14114, 14115, 14116, 14117, 14118, 14119, 14120, 14189, 14190, 14191, 14192, 14193, 14194, 14195, 14196, 14197, 14198, 14199, 14200, 14201, 14202, 14203, 15105 & 15106 of 2015, W.P.(C) No.10273 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.153 of 2008.
Decided On : 28-11-2016
For the Petitioners: M/s.Durga Prasad Nanda, R.K. Kanungo, B.P. Panda, S.B. Sahoo and P.K. Kar, M/s. J. Patnaik, A.K. Panda, B. Mohanty and T. K. pattnaik.
For the Opp. Parties : M/s. Sadasiva Patra, S. Rath and D.D. Sahu.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Maintainability of application filed U/s.33-A - Whether the application is maintainable during pendency of conciliation proceeding or dispute referred for adjudication - Whether the Tribunal has power to review its own order and restore the case to its original file for adjudication afresh - Whether the notification issued by the State Government prohibiting certain job categories is sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
104 workmen were retrenched from service w.e.f. 31.12.1996. Prior to that, a reference was made on 04.12.1996 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The retrenched workmen filed an application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that the order of retrenchment was in violation of Section 33-A. The Tribunal passed an award entertaining the application and holding the relationship of employer and employee, but refused to reinstate the workmen in service. The workmen filed writ petitions challenging the order passed U/s.33-A, while the Management filed writ petitions challenging the maintainability of the application U/s.33-A.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the application U/s.33-A was not maintainable since it was filed after the failure of conciliation proceeding and before the reference was made by the appropriate Government. The Court further held that the Tribunal had no power to review its own order and restore the case to its original file for adjudication afresh. The Court also held that the notification issued by the State Government prohibiting certain job categories was not sustainable since it was issued without complying with the order passed by the Court in an earlier case.
Issues: 1. Whether the application U/s.33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable during the pendency of conciliation proceeding or dispute referred for adjudication? 2. Whether the Tribunal has power to review its own order and restore the case to its original file for adjudication afresh? 3. Whether the notification issued by the State Government prohibiting certain job categories is sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The application U/s.33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable during the pendency of conciliation proceeding or dispute referred for adjudication. 2. The Tribunal has no power to review its own order and restore the case to its original file for adjudication afresh. 3. The notification issued by the State Government prohibiting certain job categories is not sustainable if it is issued without complying with the order passed by the Court in an earlier case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Management and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the workmen. The Court also quashed the award passed by the Tribunal in the application filed U/s.33-A and the notification issued by the State Government prohibiting certain job categories.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
All these writ petitions involved the issue which pertains to Industrial Disputes raised by the workmen for their regularization under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 giving rise to I.D. Case No. 16 of 1969 and as such all the cases have been directed to be heard together and accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.(C) Nos.10540, 5859, 5861, 5862, 5863, 5864, 5865, 5866, 5867, 5868, 5869, 5870, 5871, 5872, 5873, 5874, 5875, 10541, 10543, 10544, 10545, 10546, 10547, 10548, 10555, 10838, 10849, 10840, 10841, 10843, 10844, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10850, 10867, 16206, 16208, 16213, 16215 & 10839 of 2015 having been filed by the Management of M/s.Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela (herein after referred as writ petitions preferred by the Management) in which the order passed U/s.33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in different miscellaneous applications pertaining to I.D. Case No.16 of 1996 has been challenged whereby and where under the maintainability of the application filed by the workmen U/s.33-A has been questioned.
3. W.P.(C) Nos.14098, 14099, 14100, 14101, 14102, 14103, 14104, 14105, 14106, 14107, 14108, 14109, 14110, 14111, 14112, 14113, 14114, 14115, 14116, 14117, 14118, 14119, 14120, 14189, 14190, 14191, 14192, 14193, 14194, 14195, 14196, 14197, 14198, 14199, 14200, 14201, 14202, 14203, 15105 & 15106 of 2015 having been filed by the workmen (herein after referred to as writ petitions filed by the workmen) wherein the workmen have questioned the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the application filed U/s.33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to pass order for reinstatement of the workmen in service.
4. W.P.(C) No.153 of 2008 having been filed by the workman questioning the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dtd.20.11.2007 whereby and where under the restoration application filed by the workmen has been held to be not maintainable and accordingly the petition has been dismissed.
O.J.C. No.729 of 1999 having been filed by the Management, Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela challenging the notification dtd.17th December, 1998 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Odisha.
W.P.(C) No.10273 of 2014 having been filed by another group of workmen assailing the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby and where under the proceeding arising out of I.D. Case No.17 of 2004 has been kept in abeyance till disposal of O.J.C. No.729 of 1999 filed by the Management.
5. The brief history of the cases is that a writ petition has been filed by the workmen, namely, R. K. Panda and Others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being W.P.(C) No.617 of 1986 praying inter alia therein that they had been employed by the Steel Authority of India through various contractors at its Rourkela Plant, but they are doing jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to the jobs which are being done by the regular employees of the Management and as such they are entitled to same pay which is being paid to the regular employees of the Management and are entitled to be treated as the regular employees of the Management. It has been alleged that the Management in order to frustrate the claims of the workmen and other labourers similarly situated, to be treated as regular employees of the Management, designated them as contract labourers. According to them they had been working for the Management for the last 10 to 20 years under different contractors, the contractors used to be changed, but while awarding the contract, one of the terms incorporated in the agreement used to be “the incoming contractors shall employ the workers of the respective outgoing contractors subject to the requirement of the job”. In the said agreement it has been stated that the parties shall be governed by the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
