Dismissed

Md,Orissa Lift Irrig v. Harish Ch.Das andORS.

Orissa HC22 Jun 2021WP(C)/22471/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition filed by ORILIC challenging a Labour Court award. The Court held that Cultivators' Representatives are workmen entitled to equal wages as other employees and refrained from interfering with the Labour Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Refrained from interfering with the award dated 07.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court.

Md,Orissa Lift Irrig Vs Harish Ch.Das andORS. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.22471 of 2012

¶3

The Managing Director, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited and Another …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Harish Chandra Das and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER 22.06.2021

Order No.

1. The petitioner Corporation which is a Public Sector Undertaking assails the award dated 7^th May, 2012 passed in I.D. Misc. Case No.43 / 2009 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by way of this writ petition.

¶14

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Opposite Parties/Cultivators’ Representatives (C.Rs) and not “workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were granted honorarium of Rs.75/- per month for the operation of the Pumps in the Lift Irrigation Projects. It is further stated that pursuant to the resolution adopted at the 84^th meeting of the Board of Directors, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. held on 26.7.1990, the Opposite parties have been reengaged on NMR basis as Pump Helpers from the date of their joining.

¶15

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Corporation further submits

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

that there has been a standing ban order passed by the Finance Department, Government of Orissa vide order/letter No.WF-11180/92 17815(45) dt.12.4.1993 prescribing ban on recruitment of work charge employees and NMR employees. Hence, there is no question of treating the petitioners as NMR employees. Furthermore, the 46 Opposite Parties who are enlisted as cultivator representatives (CRs) had not completed 7 years or more experience in operation of L.I. Projects by 1.1.1990 which is in conformity with the decision of the 84th meeting of the Board of Directors of OLIC held on 26.7.1990. Since the Opposite Parties have not completed 7 years of experience, their cases were not considered for re-engagement as NMR pursuant to the 84th Board Resolution dated 26.7.1990.

¶19

4. The process of internal restructuring of the Corporation and followed by a Cabinet decision of the Government which warranted all NMR/DLRs numbering 1274 were to be disengaged due to their redundancies. The Petitioner Corporation allowed majority of its employees to take VRS/VSS and so many employees were relieved from service as a part of its massive lay off plan. In view of the above, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is thoroughly misconceived, cryptic and whimsical.

¶20

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. being a state owned Corporation commercial organization that sells water to the cultivators of the entire State as per the rate fixed by the Corporation from time to time. It cannot absolve of its responsibility to pass on the legitimate dues of the CRs. The

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

Petitioner Corporation is having an army of Pump operators numbering about 6,000 spread across the State in order to irrigate the lands of the cultivators. It has engaged Pump operators under different designations like Work Charge, Regular, N.M.R. and C.Rs. The C.Rs. used to get remuneration of Rs.50/- per month as consolidated pay which was later revised to Rs.75/- per month as consolidated pay. The Department of Labour and Employment has held the C.Rs as workmen under the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. There is also registered trade union of C.Rs with certificate of registration in form 'C' bearing No.1564 dated 20.7.1984.

¶24

6. Cultivators’ Representatives are entitled to get wages at par with the Nominal Muster Roll workers of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. The intention of the Government was to replace the NMRs and the regular employees with that of CRs with a view to unburden its salary obligation. It is also the consistent view of the workmen that there is little difference in the nature of work done by the NMRs and the CRs. The CRs are under the administrative control of the Management in respect of fines, dismissal, retrenchment and deduction from wages. The remuneration paid to the C.Rs by the Management under its head of accounts 'wages'.

¶25

7. The thrust of the Petitioner’s Management to reduce the expenditure by reducing the surplus manpower is just to hoodwink and to deceive the C.Rs. The entire exercise is perilous for the Opposite Parties. It is trite to mention here that Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation is an expanding organization, so did it

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

expand its expenditure during the last few years. The contribution of the C.Rs. without skill obscolence in the economic turnaround of the Corporation cannot be ruled out.

¶29

8. The C.Rs are workmen like any other Pump operators of the Corporation and they are, therefore, entitled to all benefits permissible to them. Since the State Government intended that the work performed by the regular and the N.M.R. Pump drivers should be handled by the C.Rs and accordingly, the Management has taken a conscious step to entrust the aforesaid job of operation and maintenance of the L.I. Points to the Cultivator's Representatives. The operation and maintenance of the L.I. Points cannot be anything but skilled manual labour.

¶30

This would go to show that the N.M.Rs and the C.Rs were being treated on the same footing and the C.Rs were acting under the direction of the officials of the Management. The aforementioned discussion would show that the Cultivators’ Representatives were for all practical purposes employees of the Corporation being treated like N.M.R. and they were acting under the directions of the officials of the Management and the C.Rs were amenable even to their disciplinary jurisdiction.

¶31

9. The Opposite Parties are poor employees of the Corporation and completed more than seven years in the establishment discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the authority without any latches. However, they have been deprived of their legitimate dues. The exercise of downsizing could be the organizational priorities of the Corporation but downsizing with dignity cannot be lost sight of.

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties are entitled to get wages at par with the Nominal Muster Roll workers of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and shall be entitled to get their legitimate dues.

¶35

11. We, accordingly, refrain ourselves from interfering with the award dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.43 of 2009. The present Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost.

¶36

12. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶37

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶38

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶39

Asish Kar/Lingaraj Behera

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Md,Orissa Lift Irrig v. Harish Ch.Das andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md,Orissa Lift Irrig v. Harish Ch.Das andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K.Sarawagi and Co.Pv Vs Paradip Port Trust

SBI Vs B.M.,Canara Bank

Susanta Alias Susanta Vs State of Orissa

The State of Odisha Vs Durga Charan Das

State Orissa Vs Odisha Mining Workers Federation

Shib Nath Roy Vs State and Ors.