The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing reasons in awards and the need for expeditious disposal of labor disputes.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Sahoo, learn ed advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-management. He submits, impugned is award dated 7th June, 2012, made ex-parte against his client. On query from Court he submits, there is no averment in the petition regarding notice had of impugned award and thereupon his client moving this Court by the writ petition.

2. He submits, the workman (opposite party no.1) was not an employee of his client. His services were obtained on contract basis through contractor (opposite party no.2). Said opposite party no.2 also did not appear before the labour Court.

3. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers Ltd., reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695, paragraph 22. A passage from the paragraph is extracted and reproduced below.

'22. It is not for the High Court to inquire into the question and decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or in any other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. It is a matter for the decision of the government after considering the matter, as required to be considered under Section 10 of the Act. The only consequences provided in the Act where either the principal employer or the labour contractor violates the provision of Sections 9 (sic 7) and 12 respectively is the penal provision, as envisaged under the Act for which reference may be made to Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. We are thus of the firm view that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or the rules, the Court could not issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer. xx xx xx' (emphasis supplied)

With reference to above relied upon paragraph he submits, the labour Court too could not direct reinstatement and payment of back wages as such direction implies finding that the workman had become employee of the principal employer, his client. 

4. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of the workman, while none appears on behalf of the contractor (opposite party no.2). There appears to have been proper dispatch of the notice but neither acknowledgement due card nor the postal article was returned. Good service is presumed.

5. Mr. Dash submits, his client was actually employee of petitioner. He draws attention to annexures in his client's counter. In particular he refers to intimation dated 19th September, 2001 issued by Oriental Security Service to him.

Text of the intimation is reproduced below.

'Your name has been recommended by the Hon'ble Minister, Finance, Orissa for engagement in O.S.B.C. on contract basis. You are hereby requested to attend the interview on 25.9.2001 by 11.00 A.M. at 315-A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar positively. Failing which your application for engagement will not entertain further. No T.A/D.A will be given to attend the interview.'

He submits, pursuant to his client being successful in the interview, he was deputed as Depot Attendant in warehouse of petitioner at Rayagada. He also refers to manpower position maintained by petitioner as on 1st January, 2004, wherein his client's name appears. He then draws attention to letter dated 28th November, 2007 from Minister of State for Excise and Tourism, Odisha to petitioner. Text of it is reproduced below.

'Enclosed, please find the representation of Sri Rajendra Kumar Barik which is self explanatory. As stated therein Sri Barik has been working as Class-IV employee at Nirgundi Depot under Orissa State Beverage Corporation on adhoc basis since 2003 with utmost satisfaction of higher authority. He belongs to a poor family. He has prayed before me in my grievance cell for his continuance in the said post considering his past experiences. The genuine case of Sri Barik for his continuance may be considered favourably.'

He submits, his client is an employee of petitioner, wrongfully shown to be a contract labour. Hence, the re