Reengagement Of Casual Labourer Cannot Ordered By Court If He Was Engaged In Temporary Scheme: Orrisa High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner, a workman, worked under the management of Horticulturist, Bhubaneswar on a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis from 01.07.1984 to 28.02.1990 under a verbal agreement. Claiming illegal termination of his service, he initiated an industrial dispute in 1993. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.

The key issue framed by the Labour Court was whether the refusal of employment to the Workman was legal and justified, and if not, what relief the Workman was entitled to. The Workman argued that he met the criteria for regular employment under the ID Act.

The Management contended that the Workman was engaged as a casual laborer under a temporary scheme, which ceased after its completion, leading to the termination of his engagement. It argued that the Workman was not a regular employee and thus not entitled to reinstatement.

The Labour Court held that the Workman's claim for reinstatement was untenable. It held that since the project was ended, the Workman was not entitled to relief under the ID Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Orrisa High Court (“High Court”) challenging the legality of the order passed by the Labour Court.

Contentions of the Parties:

The Workman argued:

- The Labour Court erred in not applying Section 25-F of the ID Act despite acknowledging the petitioner's work from 16.06.1984 to 26.10.1985.

- The Workman's engagement was unjustly limited to the period mentioned, especially when others engaged after him were allowed to continue.

- Refusal to recognize the petitioner's employment beyond 26.10.1985 due to the scheme's termination was unjustified.

The Management argued:

- The ID Act doesn't apply as the Workman was engaged under a temporary scheme without Management's control over production or revenue.

- The Workman ceased work after 26.10.1985 on his own, with no formal recall due to his casual laborer status.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Verma and another (1996) 7 SCC 562 and held that due to the termination of the project in which the Workman was engaged, the Workman was ineligible for the relief sought. The SC in this case held that in case of termination of daily wage employees due to coming to an end of project employing them, the Court cannot give directions to reengage them in any other work or appoint them against the existing vacancies.

The High Court held that no direction could be given for reengagement since the engagement was under a time-bound scheme. Therefore, the High Court held that the Labour Court's order was devoid of any illegality or perversity.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Nayak @ Narendra Nayak vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.1296 of 2006

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. T. K. Patnaik, Additional Standing Counsel

Click Here To Read/Download Order