Dismissed

Sisir v. Mahanadi Coal Fields

Orissa HC15 Sept 2020OJC/10576/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking equal pay and regularization as contract labourers filed a writ petition against project owners and contractor. The court dismissed the writ and directed the parties to approach the Labour Commissioner/Missionary for adjudication of labor grievances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Labour Commissioner/Missionary within four weeks for adjudication of their grievances.

Sisir Vs Mahanadi Coal Fields — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

O.J.C. No.10576 OF 1996 1

¶2

15.09.2020

¶3

The matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.C. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. S.C. Samantary, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3, Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.6 and 7.

¶4

The petitioners, who are working as Security Guards under the Samaleswari Open Cast Project, Lajkura Open Cast Project, Ib Valley Area in the district of Jharsuguga, have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to grant equal pay for equal work at par with the workmen of regular establishment as indicated in Annexure-10 to the writ petition at the rate of Rs.4891.76/and they further seek direction for regularization of their service and further to quash the circular, dated 04.02.1994 at Annexure-12.

¶5

The petitioners were engaged as Security Guards by the Contractor-opposite party no.6-M/s. Bille Vie Security Services and opposite party no.7-M/s. G. Security Services Private Limited in two different projects, pursuant to contract executed between opposite party nos.6 and 7 and with the opposite party nos.1 and 2. The petitioners, having rendered their services akin to services rendered by regular employees, claimed the benefit of equal pay for equal work and regularize their services under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and Rules framed thereunder.

¶6

Mr. S. Palit, leaned counsel for the petitioners

¶7

¶8

contended that the petitioners having rendered services akin to the regular employees, they should be granted the benefit of equal pay for equal work and their services should be regularized taking into consideration their length of service.

¶9

Mr. N. C. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 and 2 strenuously disputed such facts and contented that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. As such, there is no contract with the existing employer and employees vis-a-vis opposite parties no.1 to 3. As such, the petitioners were employed by opposite parties no.6 and 7 and if the petitioners claim the benefit of equal pay for equal work, they can get such benefit from their employer, but not from opposite party no.1 to 3.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers , AIR 2001 S.C. 3527:(2001) 7 SCC 1 as well as the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K.V. Shramik Sangh , AIR 2002 SC 1815, since the petitioners are working as contract labourers, so far as the benefit claimed by them is concerned, that has to be considered by the adjudicating authority under the Labour Missionary. In course of hearing, Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since it is an old case of the year 1996 and in the meantime more than 24 years have passed and as such, the contract which

¶11

¶12

was executed between opposite parties no.6 and 7 and opposite parties no.1 to 3 has already been expired from 1996, and he is not in a position to know whether the petitioners are still continuing or not, he seeks liberty to adjudicate the matter before the appropriate labour forum by approaching the labour missionary in accordance with law to which Mr. N.C. Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 has no objection.

¶13

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to approach the Labour Missionary as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four week from today so that the grievance of the petitioners can be considered in accordance with law.

¶14

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court’s official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶16

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶17

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶18

Alok

Sisir v. Mahanadi Coal Fields

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisir v. Mahanadi Coal Fields

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

Bank of Baroda Vs Collector and the District Magistrate, Cuttack

Kishore Chandra Pal Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Sriram Sahoo Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj Dept.

Dibyakanta Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Rishabh Rath Vs Icici Bank Ltd., Khurda