Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Suresh Mendli vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 9 December, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014
Reserved on 02.12.2025 Pronounced on 09.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Suresh Mendli, aged about 34 years, S/o Radha
Ballay Mendli, Permanent resident of At-
Garupanga, PO- Raxa, PS- Birmaharajpur, Dist-
Sonepur.
Previously working as Daily Rated Mazdoor,
(Driver), At-Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Bolangir OFC (Maintenance), At/PO/Dist-
Bolangir.
......Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India represented through
1. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Sanchar Bhawan, 20-Ashok
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2 Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd, Easter Telecom Region, 7th Floor, Telephone
Bhawan, 34 BBD Bag, Kolkata-700001.
3. Deputy General Manager, Microwave
(Maintenance), ETR, Microwave Camp, Unit No.
VIII, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bhubaneswar-
751012, Dist. Khurda.
......Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. S. Mishra, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
Mr. D.R.Swain, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.12.09 09:49:31
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, who was serving as a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) since 1997-98 under the erstwhile "Department of Post and Telegraph, Project Wing" and subsequently renamed as "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)" in the year 2000, filed this OA before this Bench praying as under:
"(i) To quash the communication made by the Respondent No. 3 as at Annexure A/14.
(ii) To direct the Respondents to confer Temporary Status on him from the respective date on which the TSM Status was conferred on the juniors or similarly placed Daily Rated Mazdoors in terms of the TSM Scheme, DOT Orders, Award of the CGIT in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 and the confirming judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P.(C) No.9101 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 14715 || of 2011, within a time frame and to pay him all consequential benefits which flows out of the same,
(iii) Necessary directions may kindly be given to the Respondent No.3 to allow the Applicant to work in the post and place where he was working till 25.12.2012, till conferment of such Temporary Status and to pay his salary uninterruptedly, including salary for the period he was illegally disengaged;
(iv) To direct the respondents, more particularly respondent No.3 t pay him his unpaid salary for the period from January, 2010 till June 2010;
(v) Any other appropriate order(s)................."
2. The said OA was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 25.03.2015 as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 "We find from the record that the prayer of the applicant revolves around the orders passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court in TRID Case No. 268 of 2001 and the subsequent interim order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9790 of 2009. Since the applicant wants the benefit of the Labour Court, in our considered view, the prayer made in the OA is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the OA, stands dismissed being not maintainable."
3. The applicant challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 3266/2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 29.09.2023 quashed the order of the Bench and remitted the matter to this Bench for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on many occasions. On 03.11.2025, since none was present on behalf of the applicant, this case being an old matter of 2014, in obedience of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, to give another opportunity to the applicant, the same was adjourned to 10.11.2025 with specific order that "no adjournment shall be given and the matter will be taken up for hearing as per Rule 15 and 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 matter was listed on 10.11.2025 when none represented the applicant and, therefore, by repeating the aforesaid condition, the matter was adjourned to 17.11.2025. When, the matter was listed on 17.11.2025, none also present for the applicant, and, therefore, by applying the provision of Rule 15 and 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Ld. Counsel for the respondents was present, heard and the matter was reserved for order. However, on a memo filed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the matter was listed on 02.12.2025 under the heading "For Being Spoken To" when the Ld. Counsel for the applicant was also heard. Hearing was concluded and at his request time was allowed to him to submit the written notes of submission but he failed to do so within the time stipulated. Hence, keeping in mind the limitation providing under 105 of the Rules, 1985, final order is passed.
5. As is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its order dated 29.09.2023 in W.P(C) No. 3266/2016, the dispute raised before the industrial forum claiming regularization by the labourers being failed, reference was made by the RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 appropriate Government in the Ministry of Labour to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication as to conferment of temporary status and regularization of services of 168 workmen, who are/were members of the said Union. The said industrial dispute was transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Bhubaneswar and renumbered as TRID Case No.268/2001. After following due procedure, the CGIT passed award on 19.05.2003 by observing that the contract between the contractor and the principal employer, i.e., opposite party no.4/Dy. General Manager, Microwave (Maintenance), ETR, BBSR is sham, camouflage and paper arrangement, and, therefore, the concerned workmen are entitled to be conferred with temporary status. The Tribunal further directed that if vacancies arose in future, the case of the disputants should be considered for absorption against the said vacancies.
6. The opposite parties challenged the said award dated 19.05.2003 in TRID Case No.268/2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, which was RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 disposed of vide order dated 22.06.2007 by partially upholding the impugned award dated 19.05.2003 passed in TRID Case No. 268 of 2001 with regard to conferment of temporary status.
7. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was made subject matter of challenge in Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 07.11.2008. Thereafter, against the order dated 07.11.2008 passed in W.A. No. 53 of 2007, the Management preferred SLP No. 9790 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 08.05.2009, granted leave but no interim order was passed, rather, it was directed that the Management to implement/work out the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.
8. In compliance of the said direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, 150 workmen were granted temporary status vide order dated 02.12.2009. No temporary status was conferred on the present applicant and a few others. Thereafter, vide circular dated 29.09.2000, it was decided by the department to regularize all the casual labourers working in the department RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 as on the said date, including who have been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.10.2000 including part time casual labourers who were converted to full time casual labourer on 25.08.2000 and part time Ayas and Supervisors converted to full time casual labourers vide order dated 29.09.2000.
9. After conferring temporary status on 150 workmen, vide order dated 02.12.2009, the present applicant and similarly placed few other workmen, who were concerned workmen in the said ID Case, were not paid their salary for the months from January, 2010 to June, 2010. But subsequently, the applicant was paid his salary for the months of August and September, 2010 on 09.10.2010. Thereafter, similarly placed daily rated Mazdoors, namely, Punia Sahoo, Bijaya Kumar Pradhan, Jagannath Behera, Rushabha Juadi, Manguli Charan Bastia and Manoj Kumar Tandi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 367/2010 with a prayer to direct the Management, BSNL to pay their unpaid salary and to confer on them temporary status at par with similarly placed employees/Daily Rated Mazdoors. The RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 Tribunal, vide judgment dated 10.11.2010, granted such relief in their favour. But the same was challenged by the Management before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14715 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court by confirming the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 10.11.2010 in O.A. No. 367 of 2010.
10. The applicant represented to Respondents on 05.07.2011. Thereafter, filed O.A. No. 758 of 2012 before this Bench praying to direct the respondents to confer him temporary status from the date on which the TSM status was conferred on the juniors and similarly placed DRMs in terms of the TSM Scheme, DoT order, award of the CGIT in TRID Case No. 268 of 2001 and the confirming judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9190 of 2003. The said OA was disposed of on 22.11.2012 with direction to the respondents to dispose of his representation. His representation was rejected in letter dated 31.01.2013, which order has been challenged by the applicant in the instant OA No. 845/2014, which was dismissed by this Bench but the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa quashed the order RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 of the Tribunal and remitted the matter for consideration afresh with observation and direction as under:
"8. As it appears, the Tribunal has relied upon certain facts, which are extracted hereunder:-
"........ It has been submitted that similarly placed workmen, viz. Punia Sahoo and five others filed O.A. No.367/10 before the CAT, Cuttack Bench, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-A/7) directing that the respondents should examine the case of each of the applicants with reference to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and grant them appropriate relief as has been granted to others. Respondents challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa but the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.758/12 praying therein to direct the respondents to confer temporary status on him w.e.f. the date his juniors and similarly placed DRMs were conferred with the temporary status with a further prayer to allow him to work in the post and place where he was working at that point of time will conferment of such temporary status and to pay him his unpaid salary for period from January, 2010 till June, 2010..........."
9. In view of the observation made above, the Tribunal could have decided the matter RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 by granting temporary status to the petitioner at par with similarly situated persons. But the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner revolves around the orders passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in TRID Case No.268 of 2001 and the subsequent interim order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the apex Court in SLP No.9790 of 2009. The Tribunal further held that since the petitioner wants the benefit of the order of this Court, the prayer made in the Original Application is not amenable before the Tribunal. Consequentially, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the Original Application, which amounts to non-application of mind, particularly when similar question has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal and temporary status has been granted. As such, the Tribunal should have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also should have examined the judgment and order of this Court in accordance with law. Thereby, there is gross violation of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. As such, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are without any application of mind. Thereby, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should have examined whether the ratio decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9101 of 2003, which has been confirmed in W.A. No.53 of 2007 disposed of on 07.01.2208 (The Management of Director, Microwave ETR v. Workmen Rep. by President, OTMM, Sangha) and the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by this Court in Chairman- RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 cum-Managing Director, BSNL & Others v. Punia Sahoo (W.P.(C) No.14715 of 2011) granting temporary status to the employees, will apply to the present fact or not. The same having not been done in the present case by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tribunal has committed gross error in passing the order impugned, for which interference of this Court is warranted.
11. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00845/14 under Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after its re-adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties."
[emphasis added]
11. From the above, it establishes that the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa remanded the matter to this Bench for passing a fresh order in accordance with law by holding that "the Tribunal could have decided the matter by granting temporary status to the petitioner at par with similarly situated persons. But the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner revolves around the orders passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in TRID Case RAVI KUMAR 2025.12.09 09:49:31 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00845 of 2014 No.268 of 2001 and the subsequent interim order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.9790 of 2009". In other words, leaving no discretion for this Bench to go behind the order except enforcing/reinforcing the respondents to comply with the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, quoted above, relating to the prayer of the applicant made in this OA within a stipulated period since the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has attained its finality. Respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the applicant in the light of consideration given in the case of other similarly situated persons, as per the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, and issue the consequential order to the above effect within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In the result, the OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.12.09 09:49:31
+05'30'