Supreme Court Dismisses Contract Workers’ Demand for Regularization in Ordnance Factory

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sunil Kumar Biswas vs. Ordnance Factory Board & Ors., ruled on the issue of whether contract workers who had been working for more than 25 years in an Ordnance Factory were entitled to regularization. The Court upheld the view that such workers should seek remedy through the Industrial Tribunal rather than through a writ petition.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sunil Kumar Biswas, along with other contract workers, had been engaged in service at the Ordnance Factory Board for over 25 years. They were initially hired through a contractor but claimed to have worked continuously for the Board. Based on their long-term engagement, they sought regularization of their services and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta, for relief.

The primary contention of the workers was:

• They had been performing duties similar to those of regular employees.
• Despite long-term engagement, they were being paid lower wages without the benefits enjoyed by permanent workers.
• Since the Ordnance Factory Board was the principal employer, their employment should be regularized.

Tribunal’s Decision

The CAT dismissed the petition on May 23, 2013, ruling that:

• The petitioners were hired by a contractor and not directly by the Ordnance Factory Board.
• The issue was industrial in nature and should be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal.
• CAT lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Appeal Before the High Court

Aggrieved by the CAT’s order, the contract workers filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, in its judgment dated July 16, 2015, dismissed the petition and directed the workers to approach the Industrial Tribunal by seeking a reference from the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The High Court observed:

“Since the dispute pertains to the regularization of contract workers, it involves determination of factual issues. Such disputes are best resolved by an Industrial Tribunal, which is equipped to analyze evidence and determine the status of employment.”

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The workers then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that:

• They had been working for over 25 years, demonstrating continuity of employment.
• They performed essential tasks and should not be considered contractual workers.
• The Ordnance Factory Board had engaged them directly in several instances, making them de facto employees.
• Approaching the Industrial Tribunal would lead to further delays and financial hardship.

Arguments by the Ordnance Factory Board

The respondents, the Ordnance Factory Board, contended that:

• The workers were never directly engaged by the Board but were employed through a contractor.
• Regularization was not possible as per the prevailing government rules.
• The correct legal remedy was through the Industrial Disputes Act, not through a writ petition.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed previous judgments on similar matters and observed:

• The issue of regularization involves determination of facts, such as proof of continuous employment.
• The Industrial Tribunal is the appropriate forum to examine these claims.
• Workers engaged through contractors do not have an automatic right to regularization.

The Court stated:

“Such disputes require factual analysis of employment records, nature of work, and terms of engagement. These issues cannot be determined in a writ petition.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision. It ruled:

• The workers should apply to the Central Government to refer their case to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The Tribunal should decide the case based on evidence, without being influenced by previous orders.

The Court concluded:

“The appeal is dismissed. However, if the reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal, the issue shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.”

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces that disputes related to contract workers’ regularization should be decided through the Industrial Tribunal and not through writ petitions. The judgment clarifies that contractual engagements do not automatically lead to permanent employment unless supported by strong evidence.

Petitioner Name: Sunil Kumar Biswas.
Respondent Name: Ordnance Factory Board & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Kolkata, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 29-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sunil Kumar Biswas vs Ordnance Factory Boa Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category