R C BADJENA vs Steel Authority Of India

1 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

Reserved on 13.08.2026 Pronounced on 01.09.2026

CORAM:
THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Ramesh Chandra Badjena, aged about 54 years,
Son Prahallad Badjena, At-Haripur, P.O-
Matiapada, P.S- Delanga, Dist-Puri.
……Applicant
VERSUS

1. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India
Ltd., Rourkela, At/P.O- Rourkela, Dist-
Sundergarh, Pin-769011.

2. Dy. General Manager, Rourkela Steel Plant
(PP) At/P.O- Rourkela, Dist-Sundergarh, PM-
769011.
……Respondents

For the applicant : Mr. M.K.Khuntia, Counsel

For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Kanungo, Counsel

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, stating to had been engaged under the
respondents-SAIL initially through J.D.Swain Contractor Modern
India Market, Rourkela on 01.01.1983 and, subsequently,
continued to discharge the duty as contract labour being engaged
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

2 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

through other contractors, namely S.M.Islam & Association
Rourkela Fertilizer Plant, Rourkela-I, and A.K.Rout, contactor till
31.08.1994, has filed this OA praying to direct the respondents to
regularize his service as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Rourkela Mazdoor Sangha Vs UOI & Ors . [1994
(5) SCC 313] and to grant all financial and consequential benefits
flowing from quashing of punishment order. The applicant did
not produce any such order of punishment nor has specifically
pointed out which of the consequential benefits which flows
from the quashing of punishment order but deprived of the same
to him.
2. Respondents filed their counter stating therein that the
applicant has filed OJC No. 2241/2000 seeking direction to the
SAIL authorities to regularize him in the company since he has
been working over a period of 10 years as contract labour. The
said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.11.2000 with direction
to the said authority to consider and dispose of the
representation made to the said extent. His representation was
considered and rejected, which was intimated to him in letter
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

3 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

dated 08.9.2001, which order had attained its finality without
being challenged earlier by him either before the Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa or even in this OA. After a long lapse of time of
the said order of rejection, the applicant has filed this OA seeking
his regularization under the SAIL on the strength of the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 617 of 1986 dated
12.05.1994 [ R.K.Panda & Ors. Vs SAIL & Ors ]. According to the
respondents, even by application of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex court, he is not entitled to the relief as is claimed in this OA
because the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court was that “ if
there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the
contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such
dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), on material, produced before him by the parties
concerned ”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case clearly held
that the direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 out of
246 jobs because of the fact that 104 jobs of contract labour had
already been abolished. The job in which the applicant had
worked was not a listed job. The applicant had not worked
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

4 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

continuously over a period of 10 years through different
contractors of the company. Hence, his case is not covered by the
aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, his case
was referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who
after scrutiny of the case of the applicant did not recommend for
his absorption in the company. The case of the applicant did not
stand in similar footing to that of other three contract labourers
absorbed in the company as per the direction of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of . It is
R.K.Panda and others (supra)
averred that the applicant claims the benefit by citing the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela
Mazdoor Sangha but he is not entitled to any relief claimed in
this OA since the said case was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex
Court by reiterating the orders passed in R.K.Panda and others
(supra) and his case was rejected by the CLC. Further, by placing
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
the Gammon India Ltd. Vs UOI, (1974) 1 SCC 596, Dena Nath
Vs National Fertilizers Ltd, (1992) 1 SCC 695, and SAIL Vs
National Union of Water Front Workers and others , AIR 2001
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

5 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

SC 3527, it is averred that neither the provision of contract
labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 nor the rules framed
thereunder by the Government stipulates any such provision
that on abolition of contract labour, the contract labourers will
be directly absorbed in the services of the principle employer.
Accordingly, respondents have prayed that this OA being devoid
of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
3. Heard. Perused the records. We have also gone through the
decisions referred to above.
4. Before proceeding further in the matter, we would to place
on record the relevant portion of the direction of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of R.K.Panda and others (supra), 1994
(5) SCC 304, which runs thus:
“9. We are informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order, several
contract labourers have taken voluntary retirement. But majority of
them are continuing. On behalf of the respondent, it was brought to
our notice that a scheme of modernisation is in process of
implementation, which may result in the reduction of the labour
force and many of the workmen may have to be retrenched as a
consequence. Hence taking all facts and circumstances of the case
into consideration, we direct that :

(i) All labourers, who had been initially engaged through
contractors but have been continuously working with
the respondent for the last 10 years on different jobs
assigned to them in spite of the replacement and
change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the
respondent, as their regular employees subject to
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

6 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

being found medically fit and if they are below 58
years of age, which is the age of superannuation under
the respondent.
(ii) While absorbing them as regular employees their
inter se seniority shall be determined
department/job-wise on the basis of their continuous
employment.
(iii) They will not be entitled to the difference in their
contractual and regular wages till the date of their
absorption.
After absorption as regular employees, they shall be
paid wages, allowances etc. on a par with their
counterparts, working as regular employees with the
respondent. If in respect of any group of contract
labourers, no rate of wages or emoluments have been
fixed by the respondent because those jobs had not
been performed by the regular employees of the
respondent in the past, the contract labourers so
absorbed for performing the said jobs, shall be paid
at the minimum rate payable to the unskilled
workmen, doing other similar jobs.
(iv) After absorption, the contract labourers will be
governed exclusively by the terms and conditions
prescribed by the respondent for its own employees
irrespective of any existing contract or agreement
between the respondent and the contractors. No claim
shall be made by the contractors against the
respondent for premature termination of their
contracts in respect of the contract labourers.
(v) The benefit of absorption shall not be extended to
contract labourers who in terms of this Court's
order referred to above have taken voluntary
retirement on payment of the retrenchment
compensation.
(vi) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench
workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This
order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such
retrenchment.
(vii) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of
the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed
above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central), on material,
produced before him by the parties concerned.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

7 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

(viii) This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142
jobs out of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract
labour has already been abolished in 104 jobs.
(ix) This order does not relate to the persons who have
already been absorbed.
(x) The persons, who had been retrenched, but in terms
of the directions of this Court, have been taken back,
shall also be entitled to the benefit of this order. If
there is any dispute in respect of the identity of such
persons, that shall also be decided by the Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central).
(xi) For the purpose of calculating the payment of
retrenchment benefit, in the event of their
retrenchment, hereafter, the 10 years' period
aforesaid shall be counted, in respect such retrenched
persons, although they are absorbed after the passing
of this order.
(xii) This order shall be complied with by the respondent
within four months from today.”

5. According to the respondents, in compliance of the order
of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case of the applicant along with
others were referred to the CLC and the CLC upon consideration
of all materials on record, did not recommend his case for
absorption, which decision had attained its finality being not
challenged earlier by the applicant before the appropriate forum
nor even in this OA. The said factum has also not been disputed
by the applicant in this OA. However, after being unsuccessful to
remedy his grievance through representation, he approached
before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 2241/2000,
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

8 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

which was disposed of on 23.11.2000 with direction to SAIL
authority to consider and dispose of his representation for
absorption/regularization in SAIL. The SAIL authorities
considered and communicated the decision giving the reasons as
to why his prayer is not acceptable vide letter dated 08.09.2001
but, fact remains, the applicant was satisfied with the said order
of rejection being not challenged the same before any higher
forum or even seeking quashing of the said order in this OA. It is
significant to note that if a primary rejection or declaratory order
stands unchallenged and final, any dependent or consequential
relief becomes legally unenforceable or liable to dismissal. When
a foundational claim fails or is barred, secondary prayers cannot
survive on their own and that even if an opposing party fails to
explicitly plead limitation or laches, judicial bodies retain the
authority and duty to prevent stale claims from unsettling settled
matters, is the well settled position of law. In the instant case, the
facts recorded above conclusively establish that the applicant
remained silent over all these years when SAIL referred his case
to CLC in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court for
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'

9 O.A.No. 260/00637 of 2019

consideration of his absorption/regularization and CLC did not
recommend his name for absorption/regularization under SAIL.
Further, the Applicant remained silent when his representation
was considered and rejected vide letter dated 08.09.2001. It not
in dispute that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela
Mazdoor Sangha only reiterated the direction what was given in
the case of R.K.Panda and others (supra) . In view of the above,
we do not find any justification to note the rest of the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant since this case
falls to ground on precious grounds that when the order of
rejection or an initial adverse ruling is left unchallenged and
attains its finality, the core legal foundation collapses being
suffered from delay and laches thereby hit by the provision
under Article 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. In the result, this OA stands dismissed along with MAs, if
any, pending by making the costs easy.

(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)


RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
12:58:51 +05'30'