Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Articles 226 And ... vs The Government Of Odisha on 10 December, 2025
Author: K.R.Mohapatra
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: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27772 OF 2013
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
****
The Management of The Vice
President (Operations), M/s. Indian
Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., At./P.O. -
Theruballi - 765018, ... Petitioner
Dist. - Rayagada.
-versus-
1. The Government of Odisha,
Department of Labour and ESI,
Bhubaneswar, Represented by its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Department of Labour and ESI,
Bhubaneswar,
2. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar,
3. The General Secretary, IMFA Shramik
Sangha, At./P.O. - Theruballi - 765018,
... Opposite Parties
Dist. - Rayagada.
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra,
Senior Advocate
being assisted by Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. Kamal Ray, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013
Page 1 of 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 10.12.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
K.R.Mohapatra, J
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Vice-President (Operations), Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys (for brevity, 'IMFA'), Theruballi in the district of Rayagada being the Petitioner seeks to assail the award dated 10th October, 2013 (Annexure-14) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, 'learned Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute Case No.6 of 2006 answering the reference in favour of Opposite Party No.3, namely, the General Secretary, IMFA Shramik Sangha, Theruballi in the district of Rayagada.
3. For the sake of convenience in discussion, parties are described as per their status before the learned Tribunal.
4. The Labour Union-Opposite Party No.3 representing the Workmen raised 21-Point Charter of Demand before the Petitioner- Management on 17th December, 2004. A tripartite discussion although held, was not successful and ultimately failed on 22nd September, 2005. Thus, the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act') to the appropriate Government. Accordingly, reference was made to the learned Tribunal for adjudication. 4.1 The three point terms of reference were as under:-
W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 2 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 "i) Whether the demands of the union of onward revision of basic wages/salary, Dearness Allowance, increments and like L.T.A, Conveyance Allowance, Attendance, Bonus, Washing allowances, Night shift allowances and HRA are justified and need any upward revision? If so, what should be the details?
ii) Whether the demand of the union for payment of Addl. Dearness Allowance on the basis of All India Price Index 1960, Base-100 is legal and or justified? If so, what should be the details?
iii) Whether the demand of the union for time bound promotion and rationalization of existing grades are legal and/or justified? If so, what should be the details?"
Receiving the reference, as aforesaid, learned Tribunal registered Industrial Dispute Case No.6 of 2006 and notices were issued to the Petitioner-Management and Labour Union/Opposite Party No.3 to participate in the adjudication process.
5. The 2nd Party-Labour Union representing Workmen filed its statement of claim stating, inter alia, that the Management of IMFA laid foundation stone at Theruballi in the year 1963 and started its commercial production in the year 1967. With passage of time, the Management introduced improved technology and there was modernization of the plant and machinery. The capacity and assets of the unit at Theruballi was more than Rs.10,000/- crore then. Right from the beginning, the Management was earning huge profits. The Management announced Rs.700/- crores trading result for the first half of the year 2006. Despite continuous profit, the Management kept W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 3 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 the wage structure of the workforce at the minimum wage level. The Management also set up new units such as Indian Charge-Chrome Limited, Captive Power Plant, Ferro Alloys Factories at Choudwar and Theruballi, Utkal Manufacturing and Services Limited at Choudwar and Theruballi. The total number of permanent employees in the Management were 432 and there were 600 contract labourers and 126 officers/executives at Theruballi Unit. The salary and wages paid to permanent workers at Theruballi was much less than the salary and wages of other industries existing within the region and similar industries in Odisha. Due to sharp rise of prices of all commodities, value of money decreased. Therefore, the Workmen through their Union submitted 21 Points charter of Demand to the Management on 17th December, 2004, which has given rise to the present reference. The 2nd Party Workmen in their statement of claim gave details of minimum basic wage of Workmen in different grades which was effective from 1st February, 2024 by virtue of tripartite settlement dated 28th November, 2002 in order to justify their claim on different heads as detailed in the reference. The Workmen also stated details of claim in their statement of claim. Thus, they prayed for answering the reference in their favour.
6. The 1st Party Management in its written statement assailed the maintainability of reference. It was also stated, inter alia, that prior to the charter of demand submitted on 17 th December, 2004, there was a tripartite settlement between the parties on 28th November, 2002, which was valid till 31st December, 2004. When the W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 4 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 tripartite settlement dated 28th November, 2002 was in force, 21 points charter of demand was submitted by the 2nd Party Workmen through their Union which relates to the period from 1st January, 2005 to 31st December, 2007. It was also stated in the written statement that most of the items of the aforesaid demands were either not industrial dispute or could not be the subject matter of adjudication under the provisions of the Act. It was also stated that though the Management expressed its views for an overall enhancement of claim made by the Workmen, but due to rigid attitude of the Labour Union relating to enhancement of Additional DA linking with All India Consumer Price Index and ultimate walk out from the table in the conciliation proceeding, no settlement could be arrived at in the bipartite or tripartite discussion before the Conciliation Officer. The provision of entitlement of additional DA to the Workmen on the basis of All India Consumer Price Index was abolished in the agreement dated 20th June, 1994 and a new component of special wages was introduced. It was also specifically stated, inter alia, that the basic wages/salary, DA, increment, LTA, conveyance allowance, special allowance, tapping allowance, attendance allowance, washing allowance, night- shift allowance, HRA, additional DA were adequately provided to the Workmen. Thus, it did not require onward enhancement. The 1st Party Management also denied the claim of the Labour Union regarding education allowance stating that the Management provided adequate financial assistance as well as infrastructure to different Schools existing at Theruballi for providing educational facilities to the W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 5 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 children of its employees. Similarly, it denied the claim of time bound promotion and rationalization, as it required satisfactory performance. Thus, the same could not be the subject matter of reference. Further, there was no stagnation of Workmen in a particular grade and the Workmen were getting promotion regularly in their hierarchy ranging from W-1 to W-8 and S-0 to S-5 subject to their satisfactory performance and following the established procedure. Thus, stating that the Workmen are not entitled to the demand raised, the Management prayed for answering the reference in its favour. Both 1st Party Management and 2nd Party Workmen filed their rejoinder and reply to the rejoinder in support of their stand.
7. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the rival claim of the parties, framed as many as three issues such as--
i) Whether the demands of the Union for onward revision of basic wage/salary, DA, increment and allowances like LTA, conveyance allowance, special allowance, education allowance, tapping allowance, attendance bonus, washing allowance, night-shift allowance and HRA are justified and need any upward revision? If so, what should be details?
ii) Whether the demand of the union for payment of Additional Dearness allowance on the basis of All India Price Index 1960, Base- 100 is legal and or justified? If so, what should be the details?
iii) Whether the demand of the union for time bound promotion and rationalization of existing grades are legal and/or justified? If so, what should be the details?
W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 6 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33
8. In support of their case, the 2nd Party Workmen examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited twenty-seven documents with enclosures, which were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.27. Similarly, the 1st Party Management examined seven witnesses and filed twenty-eight documents with enclosures which were marked as Ext. 'A' to Ext 'BB'. It would not be out of context to mention that during pendency of the industrial dispute before learned Tribunal, the Management signed settlements with some of the Workmen, in groups involving the aforesaid reference and those Workmen opted out of the adjudication process.
8.1 The three-point reference was heard on several dates and written notes of argument were also filed by the parties to the reference. Learned Tribunal thus passed the impugned award under Annexure-14 on 10th October, 2013. Being aggrieved, the 1st Party Management has filed this Writ Petition.
9. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner-Management vehemently argued that the reference itself was not maintainable. Specific objections were raised by the Management to that effect in their written statement. But, neither any issue was framed nor did the Tribunal make any attempt to adjudicate the same. The reference was limited to three items which were considered as issues in the Industrial Dispute Case. Learned Tribunal merely quoting the relevant paragraphs of two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. the Workman; 1967 (14) FLR 37 and Kamani Metals and Alloys W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 7 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 Ltd. Vs. the Workmen; AIR 1967 (SC) 1175 jumped to the impugned conclusion. Further, merely by referring to the profit status of the Management as per Exts.13/5, 13/6 and 13/7 deriving it from the Annual Reports of the Management, learned Tribunal made a speculative calculation without disclosing the mode of computation thereof and jumped to the conclusion in answering point Nos.1 and 2 of the reference in favour of the Workmen and answering point No.3 of the reference against them.
10. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that both the case laws referred by learned Tribunal in the impugned award were in respect of fixation of wage scales and revision of wages and allowances after considerable time (20 years). In the instant case, the reference and issues being specific with regard to onward revision of basic wages/salary, dearness allowance, increments and several allowances besides payment of additional dearness allowance on the basis of Consumer Price Index 1960 etc., the same required discussion by learned Tribunal with regard to the applicability of the ratio therein to the instant case. Learned Tribunal miserably failed to discuss the details thereof in the impugned award, which was also the requirement in the terms of reference. Thus, learned Tribunal failed to adjudicate the reference in terms of Section 10(1) read with 10(4) of the Act. It was further submitted that the Management has two production Units, one at Theruballi and the other at Choudwar and employees are covered under time-to-time settlement in respect of their demands. While settlements were signed W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 8 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 in respect of Choudwar Unit smoothly on all occasions, but the Unit at Theruballi witnessed settlement till 2002, whereafter the Labour Union walked out from the conciliation/ discussion and refrained from signing any settlement. Even if it is assumed that the reference required consideration in terms of the ratio in two case laws referred to by learned Tribunal on the principles of region-cum-industries formula, then discussion in respect of other Unit of the Petitioner- Management should have been made instead of travelling to other industry far and distant from the Petitioner-Unit at Theruballi. Even though submissions were made and materials were placed by the Management before the learned Tribunal in the form of comparative chart and the manpower status along with written note of argument (Annexure-13), the same were not considered at all in the impugned award.
11. During pendency of the industrial dispute before learned Tribunal, the Opposite Party No.3-Labour Union was subjected to intra-Union rivalry. Civil Court being moved, intervened in the matter by passing judgment and decree invalidating status of Office bearers of the said Union who were representing the Workmen. On account of such anomalous position, and incapacitation of the Union Office bearers, majority of Workmen volunteered to have settlement with the Management by settling their demands and disputes including the items of the reference which were considered as issues and the same were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Management in the industrial dispute case. Out of thirty-nine Workmen, twenty-five had W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 9 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 also availed benefit from the Management through the settlement. Exhaustive evidence was adduced by the contesting parties, but learned Tribunal miserably failed to consider the same in the impugned award for which the award is not sustainable for non- consideration of material evidence on record. The formula set out in aforesaid two case laws should have been examined and discussed by learned Tribunal in the context of the case and details of the benefit, if any, the Workmen are entitled to, should have been discussed by learned Tribunal while answering the reference. The findings on issue Nos.(i) and (ii) run contrary to the findings on issue No.(iii), which has been answered against the Workmen. The abrupt conclusion recorded by learned Tribunal at paragraphs-10 to 12 of the impugned award, without considering the material evidence on record and taking note of extraneous materials beyond the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, makes the impugned award perverse. While discussing applicability of case laws, the facts and circumstances of the case at hand should have been examined minutely. A little detail of facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Observation of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of statute as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and another; 2008 AIR SCW 7788. It is also argued that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different facts may make a world of difference in conclusion in both cases, as held in State of W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 10 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 Rajasthan Vs. Ganeshi Lal; 2007 AIR SCW 7810. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his submission.
i) Airfreight Limited Vs. State of Karnataka;
(1999) 6 SCC 567,
ii) Workmen of M/s Williamson Magor and Co. Limited Vs. M/s Williamson Magor and Co. Limited; AIR 1982 SC 78,
iii) Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and another;
2008 AIR SCW 7788,
iv) State of Rajasthan Vs. Ganeshi Lal;
2007 AIR SCW 7810,
v) TELCO Vs. Their Workmen; AIR 1981 SC 2163
vi) Jaihind Roadways Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi
Transport and General Kamgar Union and others; (2005) SCC (L and S) 1129,
12. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2-the Workmen advancing argument on the first point of reference submitted that for revision of wages, certain factors are to be taken into account as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Williamsons (India) Private, Ltd. Vs Its Workmen, 1962 (1) LLJ 302 at page-305, which reads as under:-
(1) Profits;
(2) Extent of business;
(3) Extent of standing;
(4) Dividend to share holders;
(5) Remuneration of Board of Directors; (6) Customers of the Company;
W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 11 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 (7) Profits and losses incurred some years before the date of award; (8) Capable to meet additional liability for new wage structure; (9) Industry-Cum-Region Principles;
12.1 So far as profit of the Management is concerned, the total owned profit of the Management shown in the Annual Report for the reference periods, i.e., 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were as follows:-
(i) 2005-06 - Rs.18.58 crores - (Ext. 13/4),
(ii) 2006-07 - Rs.19.99 crores - (Ext 13/5),
(iii) 2007-08 - Rs.104.80 crores - (Ext 13/6) Thus, he submitted that the Company earned a net profit of Rs.143.37 crores during the financial year 2005 to 2008.
12.2 Highlighting the extent of business, Mr. Ray, learned counsel submitted that the gross sale of the Management for 2004-05 was increased by 25.47% than the previous year (Ext.13/3). Likewise, gross sale for the year 2006-07 was increased by 26.67 % (Ext.13/5) and in 2007-08 by 28% (Ext.13/6) than the previous years. It had also an export turnover of Rs.3,110/- lakh in the year 2004-05 (Ext.13/3), Rs.317.74 crores in the year 2006-07 (Ext.13/5) and Rs.541.52 crores in the year 2007-08 (Ext.13/6). Likewise, the Management also earned foreign exchange of Rs.3063.70 lakh (Ext.13/3) for the year 2004-05, Rs.20388.29 lakh (Ext.13/4) for the year 2005-06, Rs.30306.89 lakh (Ext.13/5) for the year 2006-07 and Rs.528.63 crores (Ext.13/6) for the year 2007-08.
12.3 The Management has also an outstanding performance. For the financial year 2004-05, it had a reserve and surplus of Rs.54.05 W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 12 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 crores (Ext.13/3); Rs.102.69 crores for the year 2005-06 (Ext.13/4); Rs.116.47 crores for the year 2006-07 (Ext.13/5) and Rs.201.29 crores (Ext.13/6) for the year 2007-08. The Indian Charge Chrome Limited, Choudwar, which was running at loss was also taken over by the Petitioner-Management Company. It had borne the liability of Rs.2949.02 crores of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. He derived the said data from the case law reported in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs Indian Charge Chrome Ltd.; 2006 Supp. (II) OLR 508. The Management was paying 20% bonus and ex-gratia to its employees everywhere. IMFA (Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys) owned two aircrafts.
12.4 The Management also paid dividend to its share holders at rate of 20% in the year 2003-04 (Ext.13/2); 25% dividend in the year 2004-05 (Ext.13/3), 30% dividend for the year 2006-07 (Ext.13/5) and 80% dividend for the year 2007-08 (Ext.13/6). 12.5 Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen also drew attention of this Court to the remuneration of the Board of Directors, which was as follows:-
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Ext.13/4 Ext.13/5 Ext.13/6 Executive Chairman not shown Rs.1,17,51,420/- Rs.4,00,79,602/- Vice-Chairman not shown Rs.1,31,88,976/- Rs.4,03,23,750/- Managing Director, Rs.41,50,932/- Rs.1,31,46,550/- Rs.4,06,61,626/- IMFA Director, J. K. Mishra not shown Rs.26,83,909/- Rs.43,74,529/- 2005-06 (Ext.-13/4) 2006-07 (Ext.-13/5) 2007-08 (Ext-13/6 14 Directors 14 Directors 15 Directors 136.52 Lakhs 440.80 Lakhs 1298.19 Lakhs W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 13 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 12.6 The leading customers of the Management were Steel
Authority of India Limited (SAIL), China and South Korea. Mr. Ray, learned counsel also stated before the Court about the profits and losses incurred by the Management some years before the date of the award, which is as follows:-
Net Profits shown in Annual Report Financial Year 2002-2003 Rs. 9.64 crores Ext.13/1 2003-2004 Rs.19.35 crores Ext.13/2 2004-2005 Rs.30.31 crores Ext.13/3 2005-2006 Rs.18,58 crores Ext.13/4 2006-2007 Rs.19.99 crores Ext.13/5 2007-2008 Rs.104.80 crores Ext.13/6 2008-2009 Rs.260.64 crores 2009-2010 Rs. 41.01 crores 2010-2011 Rs. 165.44 crores Filed by way of Memo.
2011-2012 Rs. 63.93 crores
2012-2013 Rs. 52.82 crores
Thus, the Management was thus capable to meet the additional liability of the new wage structure as follow:-
Period Net profit
(in crore)
2008-09 260.64
2009-10 41.01
2010-11 165.44
2011-12 63.93
2012-13 53.89
2013-14 39.12
Total 627.13
12.7 In order to explain the industry and region principle,
Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen submitted that MWs-1 and 3 in their deposition stated that FACOR at Bhadrak and FACOR, W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 14 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 Shreeramnagar (Garibadi) are similar industries in the region producing Ferro Chrome like the Petitioner-Management (Company).
Both FACOR at Shreeramnagar and FACOR, Bhadrak were running at loss at the relevant time. Despite such losses, scale of pay and other allowances of FACOR, Bhadrak (Ext.7) and FACOR, Shreeramnagar (Ext.8) were higher than the Petitioner-Management (Company) 12.8 Submitting on pattern of additional dearness allowance, it is highlighted by Mr. Ray, learned counsel that the employees of the Petitioner-Management received additional DA as per All India Consumer Price Index by virtue of tripartite settlement till 1 st June, 1994. Similar industries in the region like FACOR at Shreeramnagar and FACOR at Bhadrak were paying DA as per the All-India Consumer Price Index on point basis. The neighbouring industries like JK Paper Mill was paying additional DA as per the All-India Consumer Price Index on point basis. He also relied upon the case of Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works & others Vs State industrial Court, Nagpur; AIR 1978 SC 1113 in support of his argument that the pattern of DA would be determined on the basis of pattern prevailing in other concerns in the same region. It is also stated that the principle as aforesaid was adopted for the purpose to neutralize the increase in the cost of living and should be on sliding scale as held in the case of Hindustan Motors Workers Union Vs Hindustan Motor Ltd. & another; 1962 (II) LLJ 352. But the Workmen were getting fixed additional DA of Rs.800/- per month since 1994. At the relevant period, All India Consumer Price Index was 2350.49 point at Vizag W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 15 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 (Ext.8). FACOR at Bhadrak, Odisha had adopted the Consumer Price Index of Vizag.
12.9 Mr. Ray, learned counsel also made his submission on bipartite settlement. It was submitted that during pendency of the dispute before learned Tribunal, the Petitioner-Management entered into a bipartite settlement (Ext.AA and Ext. BB) with some of the representatives of the Workmen who were not duly authorized by the Workers as envisaged under Rule 64 (2) (b) of the Odisha Industrial Dispute Rules, 1959 read with Section 2 (p) of the Act. Thus, it is not binding on the Workmen. In support of his submission, Mr. Ray, learned counsel relied upon the case law in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs Workmen; 1981 (II) LLJ 184 (SC). It is specifically argued that additional DA was not settled in the bipartite settlement as claimed by the Management.
12.10 While dealing with revision of wage scale, learned Tribunal considered the material facts and circumstances which were proved by documentary evidence. It is submitted that revision of wage scale cannot be decided merely on the interested testimony either of the Workmen or of the employer and his witnesses as per the ratio in the case of Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. & another; AIR 1964 SC 728. Learned Tribunal considered all the factors laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court which were reflected in the Annual Reports (Ext.13) to Ext.13/7) to arrive at the conclusion.
W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 16 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33
13. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the Workmen also relied upon the case law in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs K.S Radhakrishnan & others; AIR 1964 SC 477 and submitted that this Court should not interfere with the findings of learned Tribunal except where the findings were perverse and not based on any material evidence or have resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, no such case has been made out by the Petitioner-Management. It was further submitted by Mr. Ray, learned counsel that the award cannot be assailed on the ground that the same was not elaborative, particularly when the award is based on admitted pleadings available on record. In view of the above, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3- Workmen represented through their Union prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and case laws placed before us.
15. On analysis of the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it emanates that issue No.3 of the reference has been answered against Workmen represented through their Union. Since the Writ Petition has been filed by the Management assailing the correctness of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 of the reference recorded by learned Tribunal, the adjudication of the Writ Petition is confined to the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 only and not in respect of findings on issue No.3 of the reference. Voluminous records were placed before us and several aspects were brought to the notice of this Court in course of argument by learned counsel for the parties. We W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 17 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 have also meticulously read the award passed by learned Tribunal at Annexure-14. On close reading of the impugned award, it reveals that learned Tribunal analyzed the matter in issue on the basis of the principle decided in Hindustan Antibiotic Limited (supra), Kamani Metals and Alloys (supra). Hindustan Antibiotic Limited (supra), which discussed the principles to improve the service conditions of industrial labour so as to provide ordinary amenities of life to the Workmen and in that process to bring about industrial peace which in its turn accelerates procedure of productivity activity. Kamani Metals and Alloys (supra) deals with the principles of fixation of wage structure. Since the reference so also the demands raised by the Union was with regard to onward revision of basic wage/salary, dearness allowance, increments and allowances like LTA, conveyance allowance, special allowance, education allowance etc. and point No.2 of the reference deals with the legitimacy of demand of the Unit for payment of additional dearness allowance on the basis of All India Consumer Price Index, 1960 base-100, learned Tribunal thought it proper to deal with the issues involved, relying upon the principles decided in the aforesaid two case laws.
16. Lengthy arguments were made by both Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner- Management and Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen.
17. The main plank of argument of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate was that learned Tribunal, after reproducing the principles in aforesaid case laws in the impugned award, straightway jumped to W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 18 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 the conclusion answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the Workmen. Learned Tribunal, neither dealt with nor discussed evidence either oral or documentary and the rival cases of the parties. It did not discuss the details of entitlement, if any, of the Workmen. According to him, the impugned award is cryptic and non-speaking. It is based on speculation and hypothesis as well as assumption. Learned Tribunal did not make any attempt to analyze the case of either of the parties in reaching at the conclusion. He, therefore, argued that rival case of the parties as well as evidence both oral and documentary available on record should have been analyzed by learned Tribunal to adjudicate the claim of the Workmen, if any. According to him, the developments that took place during pendency of the reference before learned Tribunal though referred to in the impugned award, but the learned Tribunal miserably failed to discuss effect of such settlement/development on the case of the Workmen. He verily relied upon the case of TELCO (supra) and submitted that settlement arrived at by a majority of the Workmen is presumed to be fair and should not have been lightly interfered by the learned Tribunal.
18. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen, on the other hand, submitted that though not in too many words but learned Tribunal discussed the claim of the Workmen basing upon the materials on record keeping in mind the principles decided in aforesaid two case laws. It is not required by the learned Tribunal to deal with each and every line of deposition and each document relied W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 19 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 upon by the parties to reach at a conclusion. In support of his submission, he relied upon the case of the Management of M/s. Hare Krushna Mahatab Library, Bhubaneswar v. Prasanna Kumar Sethi; 2025 (1) ILR Cutt. 1082. Thus, he submitted that learned Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction in a manner which is not open to be re- appreciated by this Hon'ble Court on analysis of the evidence on record. The Workmen are fighting litigations for their legitimate claim since 2004. They are deprived of their rights prior to that. Learned Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence on record and rival claims of the parties arrived at a conclusion. Since the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal is based upon the principles set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two case laws, the same is not open to be challenged or re-appreciated by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
19. Keeping in view of the aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to analyze the matter.
20. Before delving into the matter in details, the wage settlement between the Management and Opposite Party No.3-Union made on 28th November, 2002 (Annexure-5) should be kept in mind. Such settlement was valid till 31st December, 2004. During subsistence of such settlement, the Union submitted 21-point charter of demand at Ext.6. Pursuant to the said charter of demand tripartite discussion was attempted, but it failed on 22nd September, 2005 (Ext.M). Since the W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 20 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 charter of demand submitted by the workers' Union assumed the characteristics of an industrial dispute, the Conciliation Officer attempted for a conciliation and on failure of the tripartite discussion submitted a failure report on 16th March, 2006. Conciliation failure report has been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure-1. On perusal of the conciliation report under Annexure-1, it reveals that there was no possibility of promoting settlement and to resolve the issues. Hence, the conciliation proceeding was declared as failed and closed. The failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government which culminated in referring the matter for adjudication under Annexure-2.
21. During pendency of the reference before learned Tribunal, the Management entered into a settlement with a group of Workmen on the items of reference. Thus, the Workmen who entered into such settlement with the Management opted themselves out of the adjudication process of the reference. It was submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that although the settlement was made on all the three points of reference with a majority group of Workmen, but the benefit was extended to all the Workmen irrespective of the fact that some of them were not parties to such settlement. The learned Tribunal, at paragraph-11 of the impugned award though referred to said bipartite settlement, but has not discussed the subject matter of the bipartite settlement and its effect on the claim of the Workmen. Had the subject matter of bipartite settlement been discussed, it would have thrown a light on the legitimacy of the claim of the Workmen in the impugned award. Learned Tribunal also did not take into W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 21 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 consideration the principles laid down in the case of TELCO (supra), while adjudicating the reference.
22. Further, learned Tribunal observed that on fulfillment of the demand relating to wages and other amenities except additional dearness allowance during the year 2005, the Management would have borne an additional burden of Rs.1,29,17,652/-. It was also observed that during the said period, the 1st Party-Management had made profit of Rs.18.58 crores. However, learned Tribunal did not discuss the source from which the aforesaid figures were derived. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen, however, submitted that the figures as aforesaid were gathered from the Annual Report (Ext.13/7) of the 1st Party Management. On perusal of the Annual Report of the 1st Party Management it gives an impression that the same were prepared in respect of all the Units of the Indian Charge Chrome Limited and not the 1st Party Management alone. But the learned Tribunal was only dealing with the claims of the Workmen of Theruballi Unit of the Management. Thus, the said figure, as indicated by learned Tribunal, appears to be doubtful in absence of any material in support of the same. In the case of Airfreight Limited (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where minimum wage is linked with cost-of-living index, the amount paid on the basis of dearness allowances is not to be taken as an independent component of the minimum wages but as part and parcel of computing the rates of minimum wages, which is to be determined after taking into W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 22 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 consideration the cost of various necessities. This material aspect was completely lost sight of by the learned Tribunal.
23. It might be so that the remuneration given to the Workmen might be lesser than that of the industries carrying out similar industrial activity like FACOR at Bhadrak and FACOR at Shreeramnagar, Garibadi. But that itself may not be a determining factor to accept the claim of the workers' Union representing the Workmen. Apparently, learned Tribunal has not discussed the evidence on record and the particulars available on record in terms of the principles decided in the case of Hindustan Antibiotic Limited (supra) and Kamani Metals and Alloys Limited (supra). Learned Tribunal, while answering point No. (i) of the reference in the affirmative in favour of the Workmen, did not state the details of the entitlement of the Workmen, if any, although the same was required to be answered as per the terms of the reference. Thus, it appears that learned Tribunal has not answered the point No.(i) of the reference in its proper perspective. The learned Tribunal appears to have casually dealt with such an important issue. Thus, the findings of learned Tribunal with regard to point No.(i) is not sustainable in law.
24. The learned Tribunal appears to have dealt with the point No.(ii) in similar fashion. Although learned Tribunal appears to have commenced the discussion on point No.(ii) of the reference taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamani Metals and Alloys Limited (supra), but failed to apply the principle decided therein to the instant case. It appears that W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 23 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 learned Tribunal proceeded with an assumption that the Management had earned a profit of Rs.18.58 crores in the year 2005. Though it is not stated from which source learned Tribunal could get the aforesaid figure, but Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen/Labour Union, submitted in course of his argument that the figure is borne out from the Annual Report (Ext.13/7) of the Management, which also forms part of the record. But as discussed earlier, the figure of profit mentioned in the Annual Report related to all the Units of Indian Charge Chrome Limited and not exclusively to the Management Unit, i.e., Unit at Theruballi alone. Learned Tribunal appears to have not discussed at all the evidence available on record to arrive at the conclusion. Further, learned Tribunal, while answering point No.(ii) in favour of the Workmen/Labour Union, failed to give details of such entitlement, if any, which was required to be answered by learned Tribunal as per the terms of reference.
25. In the case of Hindustan Antibiotic Limited (supra) and Kamani Metal and Alloys Limited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court set out the procedure and principle to determine the wages/salary of the Workmen and the dearness allowance/additional dearness allowance etc. But learned Tribunal was under an obligation to answer each of the points of the reference discussing the evidence on record and applying the principles as stated in the aforesaid case law. A close reading of the impugned award under Annexure-14 also makes the same apparent. In the written note of submissions, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen provided some detail particulars of the relevant materials, W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 24 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 but the same appears to have not been discussed by learned Tribunal. There cannot be any quarrel over the principles set out in Workmen of Balmer Lawrie (Supra). But, learned Tribunal appears to have not discussed at all the evidence available on the record.
26. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Labour Union in course of his argument contended that the comparable industries were running at loss at the relevant time. Further, the Management has not given any particulars or the comparative statements involving similar activity in the region. Thus, learned Tribunal had no occasion to deal with the same. Since the 21-point charter of demand contained onward revision of wage structure of the Workmen of the Management, burden was on them (Workmen) to place materials in support of the same more particularly when they are being represented by the Labour Union. Further, they could have called for such documents to prove their case. In the instant case, no such endeavour appears to have been made by the Workers' Union. Learned Tribunal also failed to call for those documents for just and fair adjudication of the claim of the Workmen. Hence, no fault can be attributed or no adverse inference should be drawn against the Management for non-production of comparable materials of industries involving similar activity in the reason.
27. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Workmen verily relied upon the case law in the case of Syed Yakub (supra). There cannot be any quarrel to the principles decided in the said case. In the instant case, learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the material evidence W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 25 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 in the record while discussing different points of the reference. Hence, learned Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. Thus, this Court has ample power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such findings, which are based on no material. The principles decided in The Management of M/s. Hare Krushna Mahatab Library, Bhubaneswar (supra) has no application to the instant case, as the learned Tribunal had failed to discuss the evidence on record to record its finding. It is not the case of any of the parties that the impugned award was not elaborative. The Management took a stand that the material evidence available on record was neither discussed nor taken into consideration by learned Tribunal. In The Management of M/s. Hare Krushna Mahatab Library, Bhubaneswar (supra), the discussions made by learned Tribunal was not elaborative but it had discussed such relevant material evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion, which is not available in the instant case.
28. We would have not hesitated to discuss the evidence on record and arrive at a conclusion, but that may prejudice the case of either of the parties, more particularly when there is a scope for the parties to place on record certain additional evidence in support of their respective cases, as in view of the passage of time, some developments may have taken place in the meantime.
29. In view of the discussions made above, this Court unhesitatingly records that the impugned award suffers from non- consideration of material evidence on record, which requires fresh consideration. Thus, we do not consider it necessary to discuss each W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 26 of 27 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 10-Dec-2025 18:55:33 of the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the parties in detail.
30. Accordingly, the impugned award under Annexure-14 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the reference providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. For proper adjudication, the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence in support of their case with leave of learned Tribunal.
31. Since the parties are being represented by learned counsel, this Court in order to avoid further delay in the matter, directs the parties to appear before learned Tribunal on 6th January, 2026 to receive further instruction in the matter.
32. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. LCR be sent back forthwith.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa Dated the 10th day of December, 2025/ s.s.satapathy W.P(C). NO. 27772 OF 2013 Page 27 of 27