(Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.)
Steel Authority of India Limited _______________________ Appellant;
v.
Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited and Another _____________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26634-26635 of 2019), decided on February 7, 2023
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
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:
(a) Whether the claim of the union for regularization of the services of 159 workmen is justified?
(b) What relief, if any, are they entitled?
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 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 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.
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 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.
———
