The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstatement award.

K.R.Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) has filed this writ petition assailing the award dated 7^th March, 2018 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) in Industrial Dispute Case No.266 of 2001 directing reinstatement of the Workman/Opposite Party No.2 with 50% of back wages within two months of publication of the award failing which the Workman would be entitled to full back wages from the date of award along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the back wages and the wages accrued to him from the date of the award.

2.1 The industrial dispute came up before learned Tribunal for adjudication on being referred by the appropriate Government in exercise of power under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The term of reference for adjudication was as follows:-

“Whether Sri Manas Kumar Patra is a Workman of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited? If yes, whether the action of the Management in retrenching his services is proper or justified; if not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?”

Initially, the matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and was registered as ID Case No.80 of 1999. Subsequently, it was transferred to the learned Tribunal and was registered as Tr.ID Case No.266 of 2001.

3. For convenience of discussion, the parties are described as per their status before learned Tribunal. The Petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation Limited was the 1^st Party-Management and the Opposite Party No.2-Sri Manas Kumar Patra was the 2^nd Party-Workman before the learned Tribunal.

4. The 2^nd Party Workman filed his statement of claim, inter alia, stating that he was engaged under the 1^st Party Management for Paradip Depot by the Deputy Manager, Paradip with effect from 20^th August, 1994. After working for some days at Paradip Depot, the Management sent him to Paradip Phosphate Limited (for brevity, ‘PPL’) site with effect from 31^st August, 1994. He was entrusted with the duty of coordinating the work for early unloading of petroleum product from the tankers supplied to the IOCL, Paradip. It is stated that the Workman was designated as Liaison Worker and his wage was fixed at Rs.750/-per month. He performed his duties continuously up to 12^th December, 1996 for about two years and four months. For entry into the PPL premises, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was required to issue gate pass. On the recommendation of the Management, the Workman was being issued with gate passes by the CISF personnel. The CISF suddenly stopped issuing gate pass on 13^th December, 1996 on the plea that verbal request was made by the Management not to issue gate pass in favour of the Workman. The Workman was also not paid his wages from July, 1996 to 12^th December, 1996. As the Workman was claiming enhancement of wages in terms of Minimum Wages Act, he was terminated from service. Before his termination, mandatory provision of Section 25 F of the Act was not complied with by the Management. Neither any charge sheet was issued nor was the Workman afforded with opportunity of being heard before termination of his services. Hence, the Workman was constrained to approach the Conciliation Officer, who submitted a failure report to the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the industria