Partly allowed¶48

State Social Welfare Board v. Sanjubala Sahoo

Orissa HC21 Jul 2025WP(C)/3330/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement; outsourcing manpower agency; principal employer; payroll; full back wages; refusal of re-engagement offer; Section 2-A(2) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Labour Court Bhubaneswar award set aside in part; State Social Welfare Board Odisha; M/s Jagannath Security Service; Sanjubala Sahoo; interest 9% per annum; W.P.(C) No. 3330 of 2017; High Court of Orissa; decided 21.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned award's direction for reinstatement of the Workman with Management No.2; no order as to costs. ¶48

State Social Welfare Board Vs Sanjubala Sahoo — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned award's direction for reinstatement of the Workman with Management No.2; no order as to costs.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction in the impugned award for reinstatement of the Workman with Management No.2 (State Social Welfare Board) is sustainable, given that she was engaged on outsourcing basis through Management No.1 (M/s Jagannath Security Service) and was never in the payroll of Management No.2. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The Workman was engaged with Management No.2 on outsourcing basis through Management No.1, was never in the payroll of Management No.2, and was paid her dues/wages through Management No.1.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the Workman was never in the payroll of Management No.2, the question of reinstatement with Management No.2 does not arise at all.

¶41

Key takeaways

Merely because the Workman performed duty as a Peon with Management No.2 while being engaged through Management No.1 and continued there till her disengagement does not ipso facto entitle her to be reinstated with Management No.2.ratio¶46
The Workman's avoidance of Management No.1's offer of engagement (since Management No.2 did not require her services) was a material aspect that the Labour Court failed to take into consideration while adjudicating the application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Division Bench) partly set aside the award dated 31st December, 2016 (Annexure-7) of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 90 of 2015, which had directed both the State Social Welfare Board (Management No.2) and the outsourcing agency M/s Jagannath Security Service (Management No.1) to reinstate the ex-Peon workman (Sanjubala Sahoo) with full back wages within one month of gazette publication, failing which interest at 9% per annum. Held: the workman was engaged on outsourcing basis through Management No.1, was never in the payroll of Management No.2, and was paid through Management No.1; hence reinstatement with Management No.2 does not arise. Mere performance of duty as a Peon with Management No.2 till disengagement does not ipso facto entitle reinstatement with Management No.2. The Labour Court also failed to consider that the workman had refused Management No.1's re-engagement offers (letters dated 30th June, 2015 and 9th December, 2015, Ext.G). Writ petition allowed to that extent; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). No. 3330 OF 2017

¶3

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

*******

¶5

State Social Welfare Board, represented through its Secretary, AtA/64, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, DistrictKhurdha.

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

-versus-

¶8

1. Sanjubala Sahoo, Ex-Peon, D/o Bhikari Charan Sahoo, C/o Augasti Sahoo, Plot No. 113, Pandabnagar, P.O. Badagada, Tankapani Road, Pin-751018, Bhubaneswar, Khurdha, Odisha.

¶9

2. Managing Partner, M/s Jagannath Security Service, At-chakeisiani, P.O. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurdha,

¶10

3. Chair Person, Odisha State Social Welfare Board, Represented through its Secretary, At-A/64, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, DistrictKhurdha

¶11

4. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 35, Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar-

¶12

751 014.

¶13

…. Opp. Parties

¶14

Advocate for the parties :

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Das, Advocate (for Opp. Party No.1) Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, Advocate (for Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik, A.G.A. (for Opp. Party No.4)

¶16

CORAM:

¶17

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 28734 of 2020

¶20

Heard and Disposed of on : 21.07.2025

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

By the Bench:-

¶23

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶24

2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 31^st December, 2016 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 90 of 2015.

¶25

3. Brief description of relevant facts for adjudication of this case is as follows:-

¶26

4. The Second Party-Worman was engaged with the First Party Management No.2 (for brevity ‘Management No.2’), namely, Social Welfare Board, Odisha, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar through outsourcing agency, namely, M/s. Jagannath Security Service, Bhubaneswar-First Party Management No.1 (for brevity ‘Management No.1’). She was terminated from service with effect from 30^th June, 2015. Being aggrieved, she approached the Conciliation Officer against such order of termination for redressal of her grievances, but without any result. Hence, she filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming reinstatement in service with full back wages. The said application was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No.90 of 2015 on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. Consequently, the impugned award under Annexure-7 was passed directing both the Managements to reinstate the Workman-Opposite Party with full

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017

¶29

back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette failing which, the Workman would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

¶30

5. For convenience in discussion, the parties are described as per their status before learned Labour Court.

¶31

6. Mr. Chand, learned counsel appearing for Management No.2 submits that the Workman engaged as a Peon on outsourcing basis through the Management No.1. She was not in the payroll of Management No.2. Thus, a direction for reinstatement of the Workman in service with full back wages so far as Management No.2 is concerned, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶32

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Management No.1 submits that as requested by Management No.2, Management No.1 supplied manpower in different category. Accordingly, the Management No.1 provided the services of the Workman to work as a Peon with the Management No.2. Before filing of the application under Section 2 - A (2) of the Act, Management No.1 made an offer to the Workman for her re - engagement under it, but she refused to accept such offer expressing her desire to be engaged under Management No.2 at Bhubaneswar. Though the same was brought to the notice of learned Labour Court but it was not given any weightage. Thus, the impugned award under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law as she refused the offer made by the Management No.1. He further submits that full back wages have already been paid to the Workman in terms of the impugned award.

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017

¶35

When the Workman herself is not interested to join the Management No.1 and refused to accept the offer of the Management No.1 for engagement, she is not entitled to reinstatement.

¶36

8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Workman submits that though on pen and paper, the Workman was engaged on outsourcing basis by Management No.1, but she was working under the instructions of the Management No.2. At different points of time, the Management No.2 used to issue different instructions and the Workman was sincerely carrying out the same. Thus, for all necessary purposes, the Workman was engaged with the Management No.2. In the evidence, the Management No.2 also admitted to have engaged the Workman. As such, the offer of Management No.1 for reinstatement was not acceptable to the Workman. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award and no inference with it is warranted.

¶37

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length; perused the materials on record including the impugned award, the relevant exhibits as well as the deposition placed before us by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

10. From the discussions made by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it is clear that the Workman was engaged with Management No.2 on outsourcing basis through the Management No.1. The Workman was never in the payroll of the Management No.2. She was being paid her dues/wages through Management No.1. Although, learned Labour Court clearly observed that the Workman was engaged through the Management No.1 with

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017

¶41

Management No.2, but observing that the Workman was continuously performing her duty under the Management No.2 from 8^th October, 2014 to 29^th June, 2015, directed both Management Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the Workman with full back wages. There is no doubt that the Workman was never in the payroll of the Management No.2. Thus, question of reinstatement with Management No.2 does not arise at all.

¶42

11. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Management No.1 that after disengagement of the Workman, being not required by the Management No.2, she was offered engagement by the Management No.1 vide letter No. 2276/JSS dated 30^th June, 2015 and subsequently vide letter No. 3600/JSS dated 9^th December, 2015 (Ext.G) requesting the Workman to attend the office of Management No.1 to receive engagement letter for joining in another Organization. Both the letters were issued much prior to the filing of application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. But she refused to accept the offer expressing her desire to be engaged with Management No.2.

¶43

11.1. On perusal of copy of Ext.‘G’ filed by the Workman (along with Memo dated 28the February, 2025), it is apparent that the Workman was offered engagement by Management No.1, the outsourcing agency which provided manpower to Management No.2 including the Workman, with any other Organization, as the Management No.2 did not require the services of the Workman. But she avoided accepting the offer. This material aspect was not taken into consideration while adjudicating the application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Only because the Workman has

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017

¶46

performed duty as a Peon with Management No.2 being engaged through Management No.1 and continued there till her disengagement, this does not ipso facto entitle her to be reinstated with Management No.2.

¶47

12. In view of the above, this Court finds that the direction of the Labour Court to the extent, reinstatement of the Workman with Management No.2, does not arise at all. Thus, the impugned award to that extent is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

¶48

13. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶49

14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶51

(Savitri Ratho)

¶52

Judge

¶53

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

¶54

Dated the 21^st Day of July, 2025//Sukanta

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 30-Jul-2025 19:52:19

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017

State Social Welfare Board v. Sanjubala Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Social Welfare Board v. Sanjubala Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saumya Ranjan Sahoo Vs Manoj Ahuja, Chief Secy., G.A and P.G Dept.

Manoj Bhutia Vs Union of India

Jhili Bhutia Vs Union of India

Bijaya Kumar Mallik@Bijay Mallik Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, Khurda

Himadri Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rajib Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha