Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Articles 226 And … vs The Director on 30 July, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.4015 OF 2019
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
****
Biju Pattnaik Biman Bandar Thika
Mazdoor Sangha, AT: Plot No.219/A,
Mancheswar Industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khordha,
represented through its General
Secretary, Sri Abhimanyu Mallick ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The Director, Airport Authority of
India, Biju Patnaik Airport,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, PIN-751009,
2. The Senior Manager (Electrical),
Engineering Wing, Airport Authority
of India, Biju Patnaik Airport,
Bhubaneswar,
3. Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar ... Opposite Parties
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Somnath Patnaik , Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Md. Golam Madani, Advocate
(For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on : 30.07.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO 4015 OF 2019
Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
JUDGMENT
By the Bench
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Award dated 18th December, 2017 (Annexure-8) passed by
learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) in
Industrial Dispute Case No.14 of 2003 is under challenge in this Writ
Petition.
3. The term of reference made by the appropriate Government
to learned Tribunal for adjudication was as under:-
“Whether the action of the management of Airport
Authority of India in relation to their Biju Pattnaik Airport,
Bhubaneswar not to regularise the services of sixteen contract
labourers as per list enclosed as well as not giving them equal
pay for equal work at par with various categories of employee
employed in their own establishment considering their length
of service, experience and essentiality to the Organization is
legal & justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
4. Petitioner-Biju Pattnaik Biman Bandar Thika Mazdoor Sangha
(for brevity ‘the Workers’ Union’) represents the Workmen, at whose
instance the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal for
adjudication. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are the authorities under
the Management of Airport Authority of India, Biju Pattnaik Airport,
Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Management’).
5. The case of the Workmen in brevity as revealed from their
statement of claim is that they were engaged under different
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
Contractors from time to time for day-to-day maintenance and
operation of air conditioning plant, generator sets, electrical
installations, electrical maintenance of high-mast towers, car parks,
flood lights, street lights etc. and to maintain proper air traffic and air
transport service as well as to maintain adequate safety device in the
establishment of the Management. The Workmen were performing
job, which were permanent and perennial in nature. They were
working continuously and uninterruptedly since 1990 under direct
control and supervision of the Officers of the Management. But they
were not being paid wages at par with the employees of the
Management, although they were discharging similar nature of duties.
They were also not regularised in spite of insistence of the Workers’
Union. Thus, the Workers’ Union submitted a charter of demand to the
Management of Biju Pattnaik Airport, which yielded no result.
Accordingly, they moved the Conciliation Officer for redressal of their
grievances, On the basis of failure report submitted by the Conciliation
Officer under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
brevity ‘ID Act‘), the matter was referred by the appropriate
Government to learned Tribunal for adjudication of the aforesaid
reference. The Workers’ Union relied upon a notification dated 16th
November, 1999 published in the official gazette by the Government
of India under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity ‘Contract Labour Act’) with regard
to prohibition of contract labour. By virtue of said notification,
contract labour in the job of operation and processes specified in the
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
Schedule appended to the said notification, was prohibited with effect
from the date of notification, i.e., 16th November, 1999. Despite such
prohibition of contract labour system in the establishment of Air Ports
including Biju Pattnaik Airport (the Management), the Workmen were
compelled to continue as contract labourers and their services were
neither regularized nor were they paid equal wage for equal work as
the employees of the Airport. Thus, they prayed for the relief of their
regularisation under the Management and equal pay for equal work.
5.1 The Management filed their written statement disputing the
claim of the Workmen. It is stated inter alia that it is not known to the
Management as to whether sixteen Workmen, named in the list
appended to the reference, were working continuously and
uninterruptedly under any Contractor. The Contractors used to provide
manpower for maintenance and installation of the air conditioning,
generator sets, electrical installations etc. from time to time. The
Contractors were selected in the tender process. Since the Workmen
claimed to have continued under the Contractors, the question of
regularization of their services under the Management did not arise at
all. They were neither directly employed by the Management nor paid
wages by the Management. It is the Contractors who are being
engaged from time to time, provide such manpower and receive
contract amount. It is also stated by the Management that there is no
provision under the Contract Labour Act for absorption and
regularization of the workers engaged by the Contractors in
consequence of issuance of notification under Section 10 (1) of the
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
said Act. The notification dated 16th November, 1999 issued by the
Government of India and relied upon by the Workmen has already
been quashed by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.6540 of 1999 and
a batch of writ petitions. As such, the contention raised by the
Workmen for their regularization on the basis of the notification dated
16th November, 1999 would not arise at all. Hence, they prayed for
answering the reference in favour of the Management.
6. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties and keeping in
mind the terms of reference, learned Tribunal framed the following
issues for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute.
(i) Whether the 16 numbers of contract labourers (as
per list) deserve to be regularized by the
Management;
(ii) Whether the aforesaid contract labourers are
entitled to get equal pay at par with their counter-
part regular employees under the principle of
equal pay for equal work?
(iii) If not, to what relief the contract labourers are
entitled?
6.1 All the issues were taken up simultaneously and learned
Tribunal answered the issues against the Workmen and in favour of
the Management. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed by the
Workmen through the Workers’ Union.
7. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Workers’
Union submits that Workmen continued to serve the Management
uninterruptedly since 1999. They were discharging their duties as per
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
the direction, instruction and assignment given by the Management
from time to time. Although the notification dated 16th November,
1999 issued under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour Act was set
aside by the Delhi High Court, but it was prospective in nature. When
the Workmen raised the industrial dispute, said notification was in
force. Thus, in view of the observation made by Delhi High Court,
the Workmen are entitled to all benefits including their regularization
and equal pay for equal work in terms of the said notification. This
material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Tribunal.
7.1 Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel further submits that although
the manpower was being supplied by different Contractors, but the
Workmen (sixteen in number) were continuously engaged through
different Contractors and there was no interruption in their service.
Thus, they are entitled to be regularized and equal pay for equal
work. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned award and
for a direction to the Management to regularize their respective jobs
and release equal pay for discharging equal work as that of the
regular employees of the Management.
8. Mr. Madani, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-
Management refutes the same and submits that by the time the
reference was taken up for adjudication, notification dated 16 th
November, 1999 had already been set aside by Delhi High Court and
it was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The observation made
by Delhi High Court does not in any manner assist the Workmen for
their regularization. He further submits that a person, if engaged
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
through a Contractor, cannot be said to be a direct employee under
the Management, bereft of the fact that he had continued for a long
period with the Management.
8.1 It is his submission that taking into consideration the rival
pleadings of the parties, evidence available on record and the relevant
case law, learned Tribunal passed a reasoned award Hence, it
warrants no interference.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties; perused the
materials including the case law placed before us. On perusal of the
pleadings of the parties and materials placed before us, this Court
finds that Workmen verily relied upon the notification dated 16th
November, 1999 issued by the Government of India under Section
10(1) of the Contract Labour Act on the basis of which they claimed
regularization of their services. The said notification prohibited
contract labour in certain categories of employment under the Airport
Authorities. The Workmen were continuing as contract labour at Biju
Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar under the Airport Authority of India.
The said notification came to be questioned before Delhi High Court
in Civil Writ Petition No.6540 of 1999 along with a batch of similar
such cases. Delhi High Court, while quashing the notification vide
order dated 22nd November, 2001, held as under:-
“In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid
decision reasonably applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present cases also and in that view of the matter,
following the ratio of the said decision in Steel Authority of
India Ltd., (supra), I quash the impugned notification dated
16.11.1999 issued by the Central Government as the sameW.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10,
making it, however, clear that the aforesaid quashing of the
notification shall have only prospective effect that is from the
date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on
the basis of this Judgment, no order passed or no action taken
giving effect to the notification on or before the date of this
judgment which have attained finality or been implemented
would in any manner be adversely effected. It shall also be
open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum in case
the petitioners are still aggrieved, in accordance with the
observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (Supra). All the petitions stand disposed
of in terms of the said directions.
So far the circular dated 16.11.1999 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour is concerned, the
parties are given the liberty to approach the Central
Government in accordance with law for reconsideration of the
matter in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court
in Steel Authority of India Ltd., (Supra).”
(emphasis supplied)
Although LPA Nos.530 of 2002 and LPA No.287 of 2002 were filed
against the said order, but the order of learned Single Judge was
confirmed by the Division Bench vide orders dated 24th July, 2002
and 20th September, 2002 respectively. Ultimately, the matter was
carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
(CC No.956 of 2023). The Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed
vide order dated 31st January, 2003 with the following order:-
“It is brought to our notice that the petitioners were party to
the Letters Paten Appeal against which the present special
leave petition is filed. Therefore, filing of the applications for
permission to file special leave petition is not necessary.
Dealy is condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed.”
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
9.1 From the above, it is apparent that the notification dated 16th
November, 1999 was quashed with prospective effect from the date
of the judgment, i.e., 22nd November, 2001 passed by learned Single
Judge. While parting with the judgment, learned Single Judge also
clarified that order passed or action taken or given effect to on the
basis of the said notification on or before the date of the said
judgment, which attained finality or been implemented, would not in
any manner be adversely effected. Admittedly, in the instant case, no
order was passed or action taken either by the Management or by the
Workmen on the basis of the notification dated 16th November, 1999,
which had attained finality as on the date of the judgment of Delhi
High Court. The matter was only referred to the learned Tribunal for
adjudication. By the time the reference came up for adjudication
before the learned Tribunal, the notification dated 16th November,
1999 was not in force. Thus, neither the notification dated 16th
November, 1999 nor the observation of Delhi High Court is of any
assistance to the Workmen.
10. While adjudicating the reference, the learned Tribunal,
besides discussing the evidence on record, relied upon the case of
International Air Cargo Workers Union -versus- International
Airport Authority of India and others; (2009) 13 SCC 374 in which,
it is observed that if the contract is for supply of labour necessarily,
the labour supplied by the Contractor will work under the direction,
supervision and control of the principal employer, but that would not
make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
salary is paid by the Contractor. The right to regulate employment is
with the Contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with
the Contractor and not with the principal employer. It is further
observed therein that the principal employer only controls and directs
the work to be done by a contract labourer when such labourer is
assigned/allotted/sent to him. But, it is the Contractor as employer,
who chooses whether the worker is to be allotted/assigned to the
principal employer or used otherwise. In view of the observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if a contract labourer is
supplied by a Contractor, even if he works as per the direction,
supervision or assignment of work by the Management in the field,
that does not entitle him to be treated as an employee of the principal
employer/Management.
11. In the instant case, there is no material available on record
with regard to the mode of payment of wages to the Workmen (either
by the Contractor or by the Management) and what was their service
condition. Initial burden of proof is on the Workmen to establish that
they were performing their duties under the direction of the principal
employer and they were paid their salary by the
Management/principal employer to claim a right for being
regularized in employment. In absence of such evidence, the claim of
the Workmen to be regularized under the Management does not arise
at all, as rightly observed in the impugned award. The Workmen
might have been working continuously for a long period. But fact
remains that they were working under the Contractor and were
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:17
assigned to perform their duties with the Management. In that view of
the matter, the claim of the Workmen to be regularized under the
Management does not arise at all.
12. Since the Workmen were working as contract labourers
being supplied by the Contractors their claim for equal status with
that of the regular employees of the Management, so also their claim
for equal pay for equal work does not arise at all.
13. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the
considered opinion that learned Tribunal has committed no error in
answering the reference against the Workmen and in favour of the
Management.
13.1 Only because a second view may be possible by
reappreciation of evidence, the Writ Court in exercise of power under
Article 227 should not sit over the findings of learned Tribunal as an
appellate Court. In view of the above, the impugned award under
Annexure-8 warrants no interference.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of any merit,
stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
High Court of Orissa
Dated the 30th day of July, 2025/ s.s.satapathy
W.P(C). NO.4015 OF 2019
Page 11 of 11