RAJA NATH TAYE Vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms B Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr D Sahu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr S S Roy, learned Central Government Counsel appears for respondent No. 3.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 03.01.2018, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 10/2014, answering the reference in favour the Management (respondent Nos. 1 and 2), by holding that petitioner was not a casual employee, but a supplier/contractor of manpower and thus, not entitled to any relief.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he was engaged as a casual Office Assistant in the office of Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) at Guwahati, in November, 1996. He used to discharge usual duties of Office Assistant. In return, not only was he paid salary, but Management had extended him the benefit of salary advance as well as overtime due. From April, 1998, Management had enhanced his daily wages. In addition, he was entrusted the responsibility to receive official letters etc. on behalf of NRL. However, suddenly from September, 1999 onwards, Management started to show him as a contract labourer against his wishes. Thus, by such manoeuvre Management converted a casual employee to a contract labourer, which according to the petitioner constituted an unfair labour practice.