Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Workmen Of Steel Authority Of India ... on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.902-903 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.26634-26635 of 2019)
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED … APPELLANT
Versus
WORKMEN OF STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No.1 is a workers’ union of erstwhile Indian
Iron and Steel Company (IISCO) Steel Plant at Burnpur, District
Burdwan, West Bengal. There were 159 workers, who were employed as
contract labourers. They were employed, initially somewhere in the
year 1990 or subsequent thereto on different dates. The present
status is that out of 159 workers, 32 have unfortunately passed
away and except one, others have retired on superannuation.
3. The respondent – union raised an industrial dispute,
which was referred to the 9th Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur, West
Bengal (for short, `the Tribunal’) in the year 2005. The questions
which were referred for determination were as follows:
Signature Not Verified
(a) Whether the claim of the union for regularization of
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2023.02.13
the services of 159 workmen is justified?
18:53:04 IST
Reason:
(b) What relief, if any, are they entitled?
2
4. The Tribunal vide Award dated September 4, 2009, allowed
the Reference in the following terms:
“ORDERED
that the case under reference is allowed on
contract. An award is passed directing the company to
treat the workmen under reference as the workmen of the
management and identical pecuniary benefits and other
service benefits at per with other workmen already
admitted in company's roll and such benefits to be
extended with effect from January 24, 2005 being the
date of reference.”
5. IISCO was a subsidiary of the appellant – Steel
Authority of India Limited (SAIL). The appellant challenged the
Tribunal’s Award before the High Court but learned Single Judge of
the High Court dismissed the appellant’s Writ Petition on January
17, 2017. The appellant, thereafter, preferred an intra-court Writ
Appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2019. The
appellant – Authority, thereafter, filed a Review Application,
which too was dismissed on 03.07.2019, giving rise to the instant
appeals.
6. The Tribunal, learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court have concurrently held that the
employment of the workmen by alleged contractors was a sham or
camouflage arrangement and, in fact, they having been engaged by
IISCO, there was a relationship of master and servant between
IISCO and the members of the respondent – Union. The learned
Single Judge, in this regard, held as follows:
“22. Though reference was framed as if it was case of
3
regularization, this was not a case where dispute was on
regularization simpliciter. This was a case where the
Tribunal examined as to whether the employment by the
contractor was a sham or camouflage arrangement. In my
opinion the Tribunal had correctly arrived at its
finding. I accordingly dismiss the writ petition. The
award of the Tribunal is sustained. Interim order passed
in this matter, if any, shall stand dissolved.”
7. The Division Bench while concurring with the learned
Single Judge of the High Court viewed as follows:
“35. We record our respectful concurrence with the views
expressed by the learned Judge on each of the points
that were raised before His Lordship by SAIL, and hold
on the facts and circumstances of this particular case
that the materials before us are insufficient to even
persuade us to hold that the learned Judge was not right
in not interfering with the challenge to the impugned
award. The 159 workmen had/have been employed almost
uninterruptedly for more than two decades and most of
them having crossed the age of retirement and only a
handful being in service, we consider that the time is
now ripe to allow the matter to rest.”
8. Having held so, the intra-Court Writ Appeal was
dismissed.
9. We have heard Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. Ranjan
Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –
workers’ union and have carefully perused the material placed on
record.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant though rightly submits that the question as to whether
the Tribunal can issue directions for regularization of services
of workers/employees is pending consideration before a larger
Bench of this Court, however, it appears to us that such a
question does not directly arise for consideration in the instant
4
case. What the Tribunal has directed is to treat the workers as
employees of the appellant – management and consequently, grant
them identical pecuniary benefits and other service benefits at
par with the workmen who are on the appellant’s roll. This
direction does not necessarily mean that the services of the
members of the respondent – workers’ union are required to be
regularized and then only the benefits granted by the Tribunal
will be admissible to them. The concept of regular employment is
not a sine qua non for the purpose of granting the statutory
benefits admissible to a workman under various social welfare
legislations and in accordance with the service regulations/terms
and conditions of employment which are uniformally applied by an
employer qua all its employees. Learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench of the High Court have also not expanded the
scope of the relief granted by the Tribunal and have accorded the
seal of approval so that the members of the respondent – Workers’
Union can be treated as directly engaged workers of the appellant
and, consequently, granted the benefits at par with their other
counterparts, who are on the roll of the appellant.
11. That apart, this Court on 11.03.2022, took note of the
fact that out of 159 workmen, 32 have already died and only one
workman remains in service while the others have attained the age
of superannuation. In this factual backdrop, the members of the
respondent – union appears to be entitled to statutory and other
service benefits even in the absence of their status as regular
employees of the appellant - Authority. This aspect has been
earlier clarified by this Court vide Order dated 20.05.2022.
5
12. The issue whether the workmen were employed by IISCO or
they were contractual employees is essentially a question of fact
which has been examined in depth by the Tribunal, learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, holding
concurrently that the workmen were actually the employees of the
appellant – Authority. Such a finding of fact does not warrant
for any interference by this Court.
13. Having held so, we clarify that it is not necessary to
regularize the services of the workmen who have died, retired or
still in employment and even in the absence of such a status, they
shall be entitled to the following service benefits:
(i) Pay-scale at par with the employees who are on
the roll of the appellant – Authority;
(ii) The benefit of provident fund;
(iii) The benefit under the Gratuity Act;
(iv) The other service benefits including the
medical allowance which the appellant – Authority has
granted to its employees under the Service Regulations
or through administrative decisions from time to time.
Such benefits will be admissible from the cut-off date
determined by the Tribunal.
14. Let the arrears of these benefits be released to the
respondent - workmen within four months from the date of receipt
of bank account details of the individual employees/their legal
heirs. In case the service benefits are released within four
months, no interest shall be paid to the respondent – workmen. In
case the payments are delayed, the workmen will be entitled for
6
interest at the rate of 7% p.a.
15. It is clarified that the instant appeals have been
decided keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case owing to the long pendency of the dispute coupled with
the fact that out of 159 workmen, 32 have already died and only
one workman remains in service while the others have attained the
age of superannuation, and it shall not be taken as a precedent
for other similar matters, if any, pending before different
forums.
16. Since there were debatable issues before the High Court,
we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to
have imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the appellant. The cost
imposed upon the appellant by the High Court is, accordingly, set
aside and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is
modified to that extent.
17. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
18. As a result, pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 07, 2023.
7
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos.26634-26635/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03.07.2019
in R.V.W.No.123 of 2019 and final judgment and order dated
18.04.2019 in FMA No.1369/2017 passed by the High Court at
Calcutta)
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
WORKMEN OF STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No.163209/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 07-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Aayushi, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Roy, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file) 8