Patna High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.versusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The respondent was held to be an employee of BPCL and the Labour Court award was upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Labour Court award that ordered it to reinstate respondent No.4. The respondent claimed to have worked for the corporation for over ten years as a permanent workman, while the petitioner argued that he was engaged only as a contractor under a tender process. Evidence showed the respondent signed attendance registers, received a workman’s salary, and no documentary proof of a contractual arrangement was produced by the petitioner. The Labour Court had correctly held that the respondent was an employee and directed his reinstatement. The High Court found no error in that award and dismissed the writ petition as without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether respondent No.4 was an employee of BPCL or a contractor.
- Whether the Labour Court award directing reinstatement was legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is liable to reinstate the respondent and pay back wages.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the award is maintainable.
Subjects
- employee vs contractor
- industrial dispute
- reinstatement
- labour court award
- writ petition
- government undertaking
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7211 of 2014
======================================================
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna TOP, P.O. Pakri, Via Anishabad, P.S.
Anishabad, Town and district Patna through its Territory Manager (Retail),
Patna- Debesh Sen Sarma.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India
2. The Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court 1 ,
Dhanbad
3. Regional Labour Commissioner Central , Maurya Lok, P.S. Kotwali, Patna
4. Sri Birendra Ram C/o Sri Nageshwar Razak, Vill. - Yogipur, P.O.
Chitragupta Nagar, Kankarbagh Colony, Patna - 20
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Tiwari
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Adv.
For UOI : Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
For Resp. No. 4. : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2026
1. The present Writ petition has been filed
with a prayer for quashing the Award dated
30.07.2013 published on 12.12.2013 in Reference
Case No. 01 of 2013, whereby the Learned Tribunal
has directed the petitioner to absorb respondent
no. 4, in his post without any back wages.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
2/10
2. The petitioner is a Limited Company and
runs business in the name and style of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Patna (hereinafter
referred to as “BPCL”).
3. The brief facts culled out from the Writ
petition is that the petitioner being a Government
of India undertaking has its own rules for
recruitment approved by the concerned Ministry of
Petroleum, which are required to be followed
invariably in the matter of recruitment of personnel
on a sanctioned post. The appointment of a person
on casual contract and temporary basis to
discharge the duties are not connected with the
primary business of the Corporation. The
respondent no. 4 was engaged on contract basis
through the process of inviting tender, selection of
tenderer upon consideration of quotations. The
main duties were of house keeping and other
miscellaneous duties are of cleaning, dusting
tables, traps, almirahs within the TOP (Tape of
Points). The respondent no. 4 started to work on
contract on part time basis, w.e.f. 01.12.1992 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
3/10
continued to discharge the duties allotted to him,
from 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2001. At that point of
time, he was paid Rs. 2850/- per month for his part
time basis on contract services.
4. On the expiry of the contract period,
quotations were floated by the petitioner/
Corporation, the respondent No. 4 filed tender
against the quotations, emerged as a successful
bidder and was awarded with the job and he
continued to perform the job as contractor from
01.12.1992 to 30.09.2001. However, in between
there was a break in award of contract from
01.10.1995 to 31.03.1996 and again from
01.10.1997 to 30.09.1998.
5. The respondent No. 4 executed his job as
per the contractual agreement and at no point of
time, there was any relationship of employer and
employee between the petitioner /Corporation and
the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 was
not awarded any contract after 30.09.2001 as it
was not feasible, for which, the respondent No. 4
raised an Industrial dispute by his letter dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
4/10
22.09.2001 on the ground that he worked for ten
years and that he was entitled for the payment.
6. The respondent No. 3, thereafter,
initiated a conciliation. The petitioner also attended
the said proceeding and submitted his written
comments.
7. The project affected people of Patna TOP
demanded employment and engagement. Due to
severe agitation, meeting was held in the month of
July, 2001 between the higher officials of State of
Bihar, petitioner’s officials and the representatives
of Project Affected People and the petitioner
/Corporation was directed to consider for contract
jobs to the affected people. As the conciliation
proceedings ended in failure, the said report was
sent by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1.
8. In turn, the respondent No. 1 referred
the dispute to the respondent No. 2 by its
notification dated 10.12.2002. Notices were issued
to all the parties to file their respective pleadings.
9. The respondent No. 4 submitted his
statement of claim on 15.05.2003, along with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
5/10
list of documents and submissions contending
therein that he has rendered eleven years of
service with BPCL with the hope that his services
will be regularized but instead of that he was
terminated from the services without being
regularized.
10. A detailed Written statement /rejoinder
to the claim statement has been submitted by the
respondent No. 4. It is the specific plea of the
petitioner /Corporation before the Labour Court
that respondent No. 4 was not an employee, but
was a contractor and that the contract job is not a
permanent job and the application is not at all
maintainable.
11. On consideration of the relevant
documents and the evidence led by both the
parties, the Labour Court has passed the detailed
order directing the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent No. 4 into service.
12. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present Writ petition has been filed.
13. Heard the Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
6/10
petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.
14. It is the specific contention of the
petitioner is that that the respondent No. 4 is not
an employee of the petitioner and it is a
contractual agreement between them for which the
services of respondent No. 4 were being rendered
and as such there is no necessity to reinstate the
respondent No. 4 into service. In order to support
his contention, the Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the evidence of respondent
No. 4 referring to document no. 1 dated
09.11.1992, wherein it has been mentioned as
“Quotation For Part Time Services” and contended
that basing on the document, the respondent No. 4
is to be treated as contractor but not as an
employee.
15. On the other hand, the Learned counsel
for the respondent No. 4 contended that the
evidence led by the respondent No. 4 as well as
MW- 1 i.e. the Management, who is the manager of
BPCL clearly disclose that respondent No. 4 is not a
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
7/10
contractor rather an employee of BPCL and,
therefore, there is no error or irregularity in the
order of Labour Court and prayed for dismissal of
Writ petition.
16. On perusal of the Annexure -3 i.e. the
affidavit of the respondent No. 4 before the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, it is
evident that respondent No. 4 has testified that he
was appointed by petitioner /Corporation on
18.06.1990 and was working as permanent
workman, since 1990 and the nature of the job is
for filing papers, housekeeping, cleaning, service
tea and coffee and other miscellaneous works.
Further, the respondent No. 4 testified that he used
to sign on the attendance sheet for the relevant
years which was being marked as Exhibit W1 and
that he has also called for the attendance register
for the period from 1991 to 2001 by a petition
dated 06.12.2006 but the management
intentionally did not file the said document before
the Tribunal. It is further testified by the
respondent No. 4 that if those documents were
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
8/10
placed before the Labour Court that will prove that
respondent No. 4 had attended job for more than
240 days in each of the calendar year.
17. On perusal of the entire evidence of
respondent No. 4, it is evident that respondent No.
4 testified in the cross-examination that he was
working there since 18.06.1990 and he also had
the appointment letter and was drawing Rs. 1175/-.
Later, he was removed from service without any
inquiry and that he never submitted any tender for
the purpose of contract.
18. Further the evidence of Subrata Ghosh,
MW-1 on behalf of the petitioner disclose that the
petitioner was given some work on contract
relating to house cleaning, serving tea etc., which
is the part of chief-examination. However, in the
cross-examination, MW-1 on behalf of the
petitioner testified that he cannot say whether
respondent no. 4 was doing the job of
housekeeping, cleaning, filing paper, serving tea,
coffee and other miscellaneous works and also
cannot say whether any tender was floated by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
9/10
management for the alleged contract works. Shri
Subrata Ghosh MW1, the manager of BPCL testified
that the jobs are of regular nature and that the
respondent No. 4 was doing the job of serving, tea,
coffee, housekeeping and monthly payment was
paid to him as workman.
19. It is also relevant to mention that no
document is filed before the Labour Court/
Industrial Tribunal by the Management/petitioner to
prove that there was contract existing between the
petitioner and respondent no. 4 to prove that
respondent no. 4 was not the workman of BPCL
and he had performed his duties based on the
contract. In the absence of proper documentary
evidence and further in the admission of the oral
evidence by MW1, the Labour Court have rightly
decided that the respondent No. 4 is an employee
of the petitioner /Corporation.
20. This Court, therefore, finds no error or
irregularity in the Award dated 30.07.2013
published on 12.02.2013 in Reference Case No. 01
of 2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7211 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
10/10
21. In view of the above discussion, the
Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
dismissed.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…