Disposed

N.t.p.c. Ltd. Korba v. Union Of India and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2024WPL/180/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NTPC challenged a Central Government reference on whether contract workers were entitled to direct workman status, contending res judicata. The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding merits, permitting NTPC to raise all grounds, including res judicata, before the CGIT Jabalpur.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioner to raise all grounds including res judicata before the CGIT Jabalpur, which shall decide them expeditiously.

N.t.p.c. Ltd. Korba Vs Union Of India… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:36271

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPL No. 180 of 2013

¶6

N.T.P.C. Ltd. Korba Through Its General Manager, Korba, Super Thermal Power Station, Po Vikas Bhawan, Jamnipali, Distt Korba, CG, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh

¶10

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.09.19 2 - The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial-Cum-Labour Court, Gole Bazar, 10:46:47 +0530 Wright Town, Jabalpur, (MP)

¶11

3 - Shri Latiff Khan, Represented by General Secretary, M.P. Vidhuit Mazdoor Sabha, 1864, Wright Town, Jabalpur (MP) ... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Mr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/UOI	:	Mr. Tushdar Dhar Diwan, Central Govt. Counsel.
For Respondent No.3	:	Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini.

¶13

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶14

17.09.2024

¶15

This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by respondent No.1/UOI in Order No.L-42011/219/20011/ IR(DU), whereby, invoking the

¶16

2 / 6

¶17

powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government has referred the following industrial dispute/reference for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court:-

¶18

“Is the contract workers Latiff Khan and 640 others entitled to get the status of direct workman of NTPC, Korba? What relief the workers are entitled to ?”

¶19

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has already raised similar issue in the earlier petition i.e. WP No.3236/1997 which has attained the finality and said case has also traveled up to Supreme Court. He has also drawn attention towards judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5494-5505 of 2005 and other connected matters (NTPC & Ors Vs. Badri Singh Thakur & Ors) decided on 11.08.2008, wherein, judgment passed by the Division Bench was set-aside and judgment of Hon’ble Single Bench dated 11.03.1998 passed in WP No.3236/1997 was up-held. He submits that in such circumstances, reference made by respondent No.1 on 06.03.2013 is in the teeth of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent No.1 has completely overlooked the fact that following the judgment of Supreme Court, the Labour Court, Korba vide order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure-P/6) in case No.194/CGIR/2005 dismissed the application of respondent No.3 filed under Section 31 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short “ Act of 1960 ”). Learned counsel submits that subsequent reference made by respondent No.1 is hit by the principle of res judicata.

¶20

3 / 6

¶21

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 submits that though the Supreme Court has upheld the judgment passed by the Single Bench on 11.03.1998, however, the Single Bench has not decided the issue on merits and only question came for consideration as to whether application under Section 31 (3) of the Act of 1960 was maintainable or not and whether the High Court can issue order for absorption in the writ petition. Counsel further submits that the Single Judge in the said judgment taken a view that the petitioners therein cannot rely on the provisions of the Act of 1960 for enforcing their claim on its basis and instead they being contract labours are not employees of respondent No.1/NTPC within the meaning of Section 2 (13) (a) read with sub clause (e) of the Section 2 (14) of the Act of 1960 and they would have been so but for the promulgation of the Act of 1970. Learned counsel also submits that in the said judgment at para 13, reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court wherein it was held that the petitioner therein may pursue his remedy in accordance with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The relevant para of judgment dated 11.03.1998 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶22

“13……..It is clear form the directions given by Supreme Court that it made directions in paragraph 9 of its judgment on the foundation that the workmen continued for ten years on account of interim orders of Supreme Court. This position was made further clear by the conclusion of the Supreme Court in Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha v. Union of India and others, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 313 (IT) whereby the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32 filed by Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha to implement the provisions of the Act of 1970 and

¶23

4 / 6

¶24

agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent on 30-5-1987. It was held that the petitioner may pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This order was made subject to directions of Supreme Court in R.K. Panda’s case (supra). Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid two cases that this Court cannot decide the question of absorbing the employees suo motu under the Act of 1970 in a writ petition. The directions given by Supreme Court in R.K.Panda’s case (supra) have to be read as confined to facts of that case. On the other hand, the principle that emerges from that case is that the High Court is not empowered to issue any writ for absorption. This is made clear in Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha’s case (supra).”

¶25

Apart from the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for respondent submits that since the proceeding in similar matter is still pending before the respondent No.2/CGIT, Jabalpur and case is fixed for recording of evidence, this petition may be disposed of reserving appropriate liberty in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶26

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner agreed with the aforesaid submission and submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the CGIT, Jabalpur which have been raised in the petition including issue with regard to applicability of res judicata.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

In the matter of Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [AIR 1974 SC 1132 :

¶29

5 / 6

¶30

1974 : LAB. I. C. 730] Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that principle of res judicata is equally applicable to industrial adjudication wherever possible for good reasons and the Tribunal would have to be determined before holding in a particular case that the principles of res judicata are attracted. For the sake of brevity, the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

¶31

“25. It is now well established that, although the entire Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to industrial adjudication, the principles of res judicata laid down under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, are applicable, wherever possible, for very good reasons. This is so since multiplicity of litigation and agitation and re-agitation of the same dispute at issue between the same employer and his employees will not be conducive to industrial peace which is the principal object of all labour legislation bearing on industrial adjudication. But whether a matter in dispute in a subsequent case had earlier been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and the same had been heard and finally decided by the Tribunal will be of pertinent consideration and will have to be determined before holding in a particular case that the principles of res judicata are attracted.”

¶32

Reverting back to the present case, from the record, it appears that reference was made by respondent No.1 in the year 2013 before the CGIT Jabalpur wherein the petitioner had also participated in the proceedings.

¶33

When a specific query has been put as to whether issue with regard to res judicata has been raised there or not, learned senior counsel for the

¶34

6 / 6

¶35

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has raised such grounds in reply before the Tribunal.

¶36

Considering that the proceedings are already going on before the Tribunal, without dwelling on merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise all necessary grounds before the CGIT Jabalpur which have been raised in this petition including the issue of res judicata. In turn, the Tribunal shall consider and decide such issues in accordance with law in expeditious manner.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶39

Ajay

N.t.p.c. Ltd. Korba v. Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.t.p.c. Ltd. Korba v. Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandal Singh Vs Chanda Bai

Balaram Manhar Vs Shyam Bai Koshle

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Shri Naresh Vishwakarma

Bodhram Rathiya Vs State Bank of India

Heerasingh Sahu Vs Gopal Das Hablani

Smt. Chunni Sahu Vs Dr. Purnesh Sahu