NARENDRA NATH BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Narendra Nath Biswal was appointed as a contract casual labour and has been working as Time Keeper since 1984 with the IDCOL Cement Ltd. (as government company of the State of Orissa), has filed the present writ application with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to regularize his services as well as to grant him equal pay for equal work.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged as 'Time Keeper' in the mines of the erstwhile IDCOL Cement Ltd. (ICL), a Government of Orissa enterprises w.e.f. 15.7.1984 and w.e.f. 12.7.1988 since the Time Keeper -Shri R.K. Pattnaik superannuated and the post had fallen vacant, the petitioner though engaged through a labour contractor, was directed to perform the duty as a Time Keeper. Since then he has been working as Time Keeper. It was submitted that although various contract labourers who were junior to him were absorbed as regular employees by the opposite party -ICL, the petitioner has been discriminated, inspite of filing of several representations since he has not been regularized nor given equal pay for equal work, he was compelled to file the present writ application in the year 1997.

(3.) IN course of the present proceeding, the ICL has filed its counter affidavit through the Senior Deputy Manager (Personnel) of Danguri Mines Lime Stone Quarry. While admitting the fact that the petitioner was working as a contract labour working under them, yet, it has been averred that he could not claim for regularization or absorption into the services of the opposite party. It has been asserted that since the petitioner was a contract labour and was beyond the disciplinary control of the principal employer, he was not given the responsibility of a 'regular' Time Keeper nor his assignment of work and duty was in the nature of a regular Time Keeper. Thus, by merely working in the Time Office, he could not ipso facto be conferred with the status of the direct regular worker/employee. Apart from the above, it was averred that the claim for equal pay for equal work is also unacceptable since the petitioner was a contract labour and this principle of law would have no application to such contract labourers. The Opposite Party -ICL further stated in the affidavit that though the petitioner was working in the Time Office, he had not been employed as a regular Time Keeper and although the work of a Time Keeper was of an essential and responsible nature, the petitioner was not doing any physical checking of attendance at the site and was not maintaining all statutory records nor was authorized to sign on such records nor making postings of leave of the employees, nor checking T.A. bills of the employees which are required to be done by a regular Time Keeper and merely because the petitioner was doing some routine clerical work as and when required, he could not be conferred with the status of a regular Time Keeper.