Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Iisco Steel Plant vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 July, 2026
2025:CHC-AS:904
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
WPA 6006 of 2009
Steel Authority of India Limited
IISCO Steel Plant
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr.Adv.
Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula.
For the Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi,
Ms. Ananya Neogi,
Ms. Anushka Ghosh.
For the State : Ms. Soma Chakraborty,
Mr. Kaustav Seal.
Judgment reserved on : 24.06.2026
Judgment delivered on : 09.07.2026
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order of
reference dated 23.04.2004 and the award dated 22.12.2008, passed by
the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is engaged in the
business of manufacturing Steel at its Burnpur Works and is a public
sector undertaking under the Ministry of Steel.
2
2025:CHC-AS:904
3. The respondent no. 3 is the workman at whose instance the purported
order of reference over the issue of regularization of service of 24
workmen in the company at its Burnpur Works had been referred to the
learned Tribunal for adjudication.
4. That in the Slag Granulation Plant of the Burnpur Works, the persons
named in the order of reference had claimed to have been appointed
between 30.01.1980 and 27.07.1988 on various dates and the Union
has claimed that those workers had performed their duties as operators
and khalasis under the direct control of the management.
5. It is the case of the Union that the persons named in the order of
reference, out of which 17 are concerned in the present dispute had
joined the company, namely, Damodar Cement and Slag Limited, which
was a contractor vis-Ã -vis the business of the petitioner company at its
Burnpur Works in the department.
6. It is the case of the Union that on 09.02.1980 a Notification was issued
under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 prohibiting the nature of job in which concerned 17 persons
named in the order of reference were working.
7. In 1984, an agreement with the contractors was terminated and another
contractor namely Ashok Traders was inducted for certain work in the
company in the Slag Granulation Plant. The said Ashok Traders
(Contractor) ceased to operate as a contractor in March, 1997 and
thereafter for sometime, by way of humanitarian act, and under
pressure and threat of the Union which was apprehensive that the plant
3
2025:CHC-AS:904
might be shut down, those 17 persons were paid directly by the
management of the petitioner-company
8. In 1999 another contractor namely P.K.Thakur was (nominated for
executing work on contract and all 17 concerned contractors labours
joined the services under the said contractor. Subsequently another
contractor, namely Aich & Aich Company has been inducted as a
contractor and the concerned persons continued to work under the
subsequent contractor also, obviously on request of the outgoing
contractor and under threat and pressure of the Union.
9. It is stated that at no material point of time, the management of the
petitioner company had any supervision, administration and control
over the nature and manner in which the work was to be executed by
the contract labourers.
10. The establishment of the petitioner company is exempted under the
provisions of Section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the company by treating one of
the 17 persons concerned in the dispute, namely, Atiar Rahaman
Munshi, as an ’employee’ within the meaning of the EPF & MP Act, 1952
had forwarded the application for non-refundable advance from PF
Trust under House Building Scheme to the Trustee Board. It is stated
that the P.F. Trustee Board of the company is a separate juristic entity
and different from your petitioner company.
11. That all the 17 concerned persons have subsequently filled up their
statutory forms under the Employees’ Provident Funds and
4
2025:CHC-AS:904
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 giving out their statutory declaration
forms by admitting their status as employees of the contractors.
12. On the basis of these available facts the respondent no.3 purported to
raise an industrial dispute straightway with the Conciliation Officer
under the I.D. Act without raising any dispute with the employer.
13. The purported industrial dispute was referred to the learned Tribunal by
the Government of West Bengal vide an Order of Reference dated
23.04.2004.
14. The issues in the order of reference are as follows:-
“1. Whether the claim of the union for regularisation of services
of 24 (twenty four) workmen (vide Annexure-i) in the company
IISCO Ltd., Burnpur Works, is justified?
2. What relief, if any, are they entitled to ?”
15. The tribunal on adjudication held as follows:-
“that the case under reference is allowed on contest.
Accordingly, an Award is passed directing the company to
regularize the services of the concerned workmen in the
company under order of reference Annexure I excepting the
names appearing in Sl. No. 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23
with wages and other benefits with effect from the date when
the reference has been made before this Tribunal.”
16. Hence, the writ application challenging the said order.
17. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
petitioner on filing written notes has argued that the order of reference
has pre-supposed the twenty four persons named in the order to be the
workmen of the company. Although the materials before the conciliation
machinery disclosed them to be contract labourers. The reference
5
2025:CHC-AS:904
therefore suffers from lack of material to form an opinion so as to make
the reference.
18. Mr. Majumder has further argued that the award proceeds on the
assertion of the workmen that they were under the direct administrative
control of the company, and having been appointed between 30th
January, 1980 to 27th July, 1988, they had been working continuously.
19. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal has passed an
erroneous award on the ground that provident fund liability is an
indirect/vicarious liability of a principal employer. Therefore, reference
to provident fund documents does not establish a direct relationship
between contract labourers and the principal employer.
20. Even a short time direct payment by the principal employer to the
contract labourers in the absence of contractor will not establish a direct
master servant relationship between the principal employer and the
contract labourer.
21. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nihal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65
and WPA 23964 of 2014 along with MAT 2266 of 2023 wherien the
Court held as follows:-
“17. From the mere fact that the payment of wages came from
the bank at whose disposal the services of each of the
appellants was kept did not render the appellants employees of
those banks. The appointment is made by the State. The
disciplinary control vests with the State. The two factors which
conclusively establish that the relationship of master and
servant exists between the State and the appellants. A fact
which is clearly recognized by the Division Bench of the High
62025:CHC-AS:904
Court in LPA NO. 209 of 1992. It may be worthwhile mentioning
here that under the law of contracts in this country the
consideration for a contract need not always necessarily flow
from the parties to a contract. The decision of the SSP to reject
the claim of the appellants only on the basis that the payment of
wages to the appellants herein was being made by the banks
concerned rendering them disentitled to seek regularisation of
their services from the State is clearly untenable.”
22. It is the further case of the petitioner that in any event failure of the
contractor to pay wages to the contract labourers triggers of the
statutory responsibility of the principal employer to pay wages in terms
of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970. Compliance with such statutory provision does not establish a
direct relationship.
23. It is further argued by Mr. Majumder that the direction of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023
dated 07.02.2023 was delivered in exercise of power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India while dealing with a different case of 159
contract labourers, who had laid different standard of evidence. The said
facts do not match with the case in hand. It is further stated that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL reported at (2001) 7 SCC 1
(para 125) held that on an establishment of direct relationship, the
contract labourers engaged in prohibited jobs notified under Section 10
of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 will only have a
preferential right of employment vis-Ã -vis outsiders who participate in
the recruitment process for the post. As such, the petitioner prays that
7
2025:CHC-AS:904
the impugned award suffers from inherent illegality and is liable to be
dismissed.
24. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in Gujarat Electricity
Board Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha
& Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 27 (Para 57).
25. Mr. Neogi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 on filing written
notes of argument has argued that in a similar matter the ld. 9th
Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur in the year 2005 passed similar and
identical order, challenging which the petitioner herein filed a writ
petition. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and being aggrieved by
the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioner herein filed a
special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering all aspects held as
follows:-
“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.
Having held so, we clarify that it is not necessary to regularize theservices of the workman 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:
8
2025:CHC-AS:904
(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.”
27. The specific case of the respondent no. 3 herein is that there being no
difference in status with the respondent workmen herein and the
workmen of the SLP, being similarly situated and similarly
circumstanced this Hon’ble Court has ample jurisdiction to decide the
relief which the respondent workmen are entitled in view of the specific
finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
28. Mr. Neogi further argues that the award as challenged by the
respondent in this writ petition and the award which was challenged
before the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Division Bench and then the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, are same and identical and it is thus submitted
that those findings which reached its finality, cannot be reopened and
this Court has ample power to decide what relief the respondent
workmen are entitled to in view of the specific finding of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as the respondent workmen herein are employees of the
petitioners herein, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12
of the earlier SLP being Civil Appeal Nos. 902-903 of 2023 (arising
out of SLP (C) Nos. 26634-26635 of 2019 and as such the respondent
9
2025:CHC-AS:904
workmen are entitled to relief as per the award passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal.
29. The respondent no. 3 herein has relied upon a judgment of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, passed in WP 20732 (W) of 2009 dated 17th
January, 2017, wherein the Court held as follows:-
“21. I do not find the decision of the Tribunal to be perverse. On
behalf of the workmen, 58 exhibits were relied upon and oral
evidence was also adduced both by the workmen and the
management. These exhibits demonstrate direct supervision of
officers of the petitioners over these workmen. Mr. Gupta has
argued that certain officers of SAIL who described the workmen as
employees had no authority to do so. But this is not a case where
status is sought to be established by documents. The Tribunal had
to see what was the actual nature of relationship between the
parties. Thus it is immaterial as to whether a particular officer was
authorized to describe a particular workman as direct employee of
the organization or not. What is material is that they were
treated as direct employees of the Company. In some cases,
they were required to work in night shifts, which ordinarily a
permanent workman has to work in. For certain period, the
workmen had come out of the fold of the contractor. In this factual
perspective, the description of the workmen represented by the first
respondent as contract-worker is was a sham exercise, a
camouflage to conceal their real status.
22. Though reference was framed as if it was a 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
102025:CHC-AS:904
the writ petition. The award of the Tribunal is sustained. Interim
order passed in this matter, if any, shall stand dissolved.”
30. By a judgment dated 18th April, 2019 the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in FMA 1369 of 2017 held as follows:-
“34. The learned Judge, in our opinion, correctly appreciated,
relying upon General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Commission (supra), that the present case was not one of
regularisation simpliciter such as in the case of an ad hoc or
casual employee claiming this privilege. The basic issue in
the case before His Lordship was the status of the 159
workmen and whether they were the employees of SAIL
or the contractors, and in the event they were SAIL’s
employees, the claim that required the industrial
adjudicator’s attention was whether they were to be
treated on a par with other regular employees. Steel
Authority of India Limited (supra) lays down the law that if the
contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees
of the principal employer. The present case stands on a better
footing, in that no contract is shown to exist and, therefore,
question of a contractor interposing between SAIL and the 159
workmen does not and cannot arise.
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
112025:CHC-AS:904
being in service, we consider that the time is now ripe to allow
the matter to rest.”
31. Finally, the respondent no. 3 has relied upon the judgment of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (supra) dated 7th February, 2023 and has
categorically submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already decided
the issue similar to the one involved in the present writ application and
as the respondents-workmen are similarly placed, they are entitled to
get relief as prayed for.
32. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.
3 that though the said judgment was directed to be not treated as a
precedent in similar matters, the substance and observation of the
Court can be considered as a guidance by this Court.
33. Mr. Majumder, counters the said argument by stating that the award
which was before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said proceedings
referred to by the parties, was on a different issue and the facts and
circumstances in both the cases are not similar and, as such, the
workman in the present case cannot be treated at par with the workman
in which they have been granted relief by the Supreme Court.
34. In the present case, as whether there existed any relationship of
employer and employees between the parties herein, the following
observation/findings of the tribunal are relevant:-
“i. According to G.M. IISCO (O.P.W.1),
“As the Contractors were not engaged during that
period we engaged Contractor’s workers and paid their
salary to maintain their livelihood. When award of
122025:CHC-AS:904
contract was not finalized, the present applicants wereengaged by us under direct supervision during that
period. The period was from 1st April 1997 to 19th
August 1999. It is a fact that all 24 applicant-s were
under direct control of supervision from 1.4.97 to
19.8.99. We did not submit any document to show that
all these 24 applicants went under the control of fresh
contractor”.
“This piece of evidence adduced on behalf of the
Employer rendered assistance to the applicants to
prove their case that they have been working under
direct control of the company.”
ii. “Ext. 11 is a Memo issued by Sri S.C.Lall, Assistant
General Manager (S & S) addressed to Deputy General
Manager (Iron) Burnpur, which states-
“Enclosed herewith please find a list of workers earlier
employed by Ex-Contractor of Old Slag Granulation
Plant, M/S Ashoka Trading Company. The contract with
M/S A.T.C expired on 31.3.97 and from 1.4.97 Sorap &
Salvage Deptt., was continuing the Plant Operation with
the same 36 workers.
Since a decision has been taken by contempt Authority
that plant operation and maintenance areas would be
managed by the Blast Furnace Department, the names
of the concerned workers are being forwarded for future
132025:CHC-AS:904
attendance keeping and disbursing of their salaries, SriS.C.Lall, Assistant General Manager (S&S).”
“This Memo (Ext. 11) described the present
applicants as Earlier employed by Ex-Contractor of Old
Slag Granulation Plant, M/S Ashoka “Trading
Company”. Admittedly, the applicants were earlier
employed by the Ex-Contractor Ashoka Trading
Company. So, after expiry of the contract with M/S
Ashoka Trading Company, these applicants were taken
under direct control of the Management definitely for the
need of the company. It is reiterated that the sole
witness adduced by the company has stated on oath
“We did not submit any document to show that all these
24 applicants went under the control of the fresh
Contractor.”
iii. “So, the story of new Contractor as put forth by the
company can reasonably be held to be a camouflage
and has been brought into existence in order to conceal
the relationship between the employees and the
Management. No contractor has come forward to depose
that the applicants were their workmen.”
35. The tribunal followed the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, AIR 1978 Supreme
Court 1410, wherein the Court held:-
14
2025:CHC-AS:904
“Where a worker or group of workers, labours to
produce goods or services and these goods or services
are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the
Employer. He has economic control over the workers’
subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for
any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off.
The presence of intermediate contractors with whom
alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship
ex contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the
veil or looking out the conspectus of factors governing
employment, it is found, though draped in different
perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the
management, not the immediate contractor”.
This case law is very much applicable here.”
36. The learned tribunal further held that:-
“………………. That the applicants where initially
employed by the contractor but after the expiry of the
contract of contractor the Management started
controlling and supervising the work done by the
applicants. The applicants of the instant case have been
doing their works admittedly since 1982-83. Nothing
has been proved to show that the Jobs performed by the
applicants are not perennial in nature, although the
workmen have been working for more than a couple of
decades.”
37. The tribunal finally held:-
“The represented applicants are held to be the
workmen of M/S Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Burnpur
Works. It is also held that the applicants/workmen
shall be treated at par with other workmen of the
152025:CHC-AS:904
company for the purpose of wages and other benefits.
It is also held that they shall be entitled to the benefits
from the date when this reference has been made
before the Tribunal.”
38. It appears from the said findings in the impugned award and other
materials on record that the workers herein are similarly placed as the
workers before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 902-903
of 2023, order dated February 07, 2023, in Steel Authority of India
Limited vs Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.
39. The issues in reference were also similar and the workmen herein are
also part of the same company.
40. Para 2 of the said Order/Judgment dated February 07, 2023 being
relevant is as follows:-
“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.”
41. The workers therein were also initially employed as contract labourers in
1990. Herein they were similarly employed, even earlier that is some
time in the year 1983.
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed:-
“10. …………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
162025:CHC-AS:904
regulations/terms and conditions of employment whichare uniformally applied by an employer qua all its
employees………”
43. In the present case also the tribunal has examined in depth the issue
whether the workmen were employed by IISCO or they were contractual
employees and held that the workmen were actually the employees of
the petitioner herein.
44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that:-
“15. ……….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.”
Thus the findings and observations of the Hon’ble Court is
taken as a guidance herein, the issue being similar and also in
the interest of justice.
45. Accordingly the impugned award dated 22.12.2008 passed by the
9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur, is modified as follows:-
a) The order as to regularization of the services of the workmen is set
aside.
b) The workmen irrespective of their present status shall be entitled to
the following service benefits:
17
2025:CHC-AS:904
(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.
46. WPA 6006 of 2009 is accordingly disposed of.
47. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
48. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
49. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
