Sitalkrushna Pradhan State of Odisha & Ors. … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3017 of 2024 Sitalkrushna Pradhan State of Odisha & Ors. ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. C. Bidyabhusan, Advocate Opposite parties Mrs. S. Pattanaik, AGA (O.P.1) Order No. 01 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO ORDER 12.02.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
interference of this Court in the impugned award dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned P.O., Labour Court in I.D. Case No.45 of 2022. 5. Perused the record. It appears that on 07.10.2021, the second party lodged a complaint regarding termination of his employment w.e.f. 22.04.2019 by the first party- management before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Jagatsinghpur and as a consequence thereof, the parties were requested to offer their views and to attend joint enquiry on different dates. Despite endeavour, there could be no amicable settlement between the parties for which the conciliation ended in failure and a report to that effect was submitted to the Government by the Concillation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Officer, Jagatsinghpur and basing on such report, the Government in exercise of its powers conferred under sub- section (5) of Section 12 read-with clause (d) of sub-section Page 2 of 6 (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short’ the Act’) referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The schedule of reference is as follows: "Whether the termination of employment of Sri Sital Krushna Pradhan by way of refusal of employment by M/s. Global Tech Enviro Exports Pvt.Ltd., At:C-23, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751014 contractor of M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. (erstwhile M/s.SAB Miller India Ltd.), At:East Coast Breweries Unit, Bijaychandrapur, P.O.Paradeep, Dist: Jagatsinghpur, the principal employer w.e.f. 22.04.2019 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Sital Krushna Pradhan is entitled to get?” 6. Pursuant to such reference, both the parties entered appearance and filed their respective statements before the Labour Court. Since opposite parties no.3 & 4 did not appear, they were set ex parte, vide order dated 02.11.2022. 7. The case of the petitioner-workman was that he was working as a highly skilled ITI Fitter in the Mechanical (Maintenance) Section of the first party-management and was posted at Paradeep. He worked as such from 12.05.2008 to 29.07.2016, on 30.07.2016 he was put under suspension followed by a charge sheet on certain unfounded allegations. It is pleaded that despite request when the management failed to pay subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and further no enquiry was conducted into the allegations even after receipt of explanation, the workman filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar demanding suspension allowance of Rs.1,23,750/- for the period from 30.07.2016 to 31.10.2017 which was registered as I.D.Misc.case No.76 of 2017 and the Labour Court, vide order dated 04.07.2018, allowing the claim, directed the Page 3 of 6 management to pay Rs.1,07,250/- to the second party. 8. The first party-management challenged the said order before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4013 of 2019 and this Court, vide order dated 15.04.2019, set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and directed for fresh adjudication of the workman. 9. In compliance of the said order, the Tribunal again considering the claim of the workman although allowed a sum of Rs.15,350/- towards suspension allowance for the period from 30.07.2016 to 19.09.2016 and litigation cost vide order dated 25.08.2021, noted an observation to the effect that since suspension of the second party after 19.09.2016 is a questionable fact and there is no adjudication of the same by the appropriate authority prior to filing of the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act, claim for subsistence allowance after 19.09.2016 is not tenable. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the second party should have moved the appropriate authority for the same and only thereafter can claim for his entitlements. It is pleaded that in view of the observation, the petitioner-workman filed a complaint before the labour machinery and consequently the reference, as above, was made by the Government. 10. On this background, now question arose before the Tribunal for consideration as to whether the second party- workman is entitled to get compensation beyond the date, as claimed by him. On the basis of the reference made, the Page 4 of 6 Industrial Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Is the reference maintainable? 2. Is there any full and final settlement arrived between First Party Management and second party workman on 19.09.2016? 3. Is the termination of employment of Sri Sital Krushna Pradhan by way of refusal of employment by M/s.Global Tech Enviro Exports Pvt.Ltd., At: C-23, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751014, contractor of (erstwhile InBev M/s.Anheuser Busch M/s.SAB Miller India Ltd.), At: East Coast Breweries Unit, Dist: Jagatsinghpur, the principal employer w.e.f.22.04.2019 is legal and/or justified ? Bijaychandrapur, P.O.Paradeep, India Ltd. 4. If not, to what relief Sri Sital Krushna Pradhan is entitled to get ? It is contended that without considering issue no.1 with regard to maintainability of the reference, the Industrial Tribunal held that the reference is maintainable whereas the factual aspect so far as issue nos.2 & 3 are concerned, it is observed by the learned Tribunal that it is not in dispute that the establishment of first party-management is not an industry nor the second party- workman is within the definition of the Act. 11. This being the admitted position, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner was continuing under suspension till the period of contract was over, has no legs to stand. Rather, once it is admitted that the termination has been effected w.e.f. 19.09.2016, question of continuance of suspension does not arise, because, the order of suspension merges with the order of termination. The Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration the date of termination as 19.09.2016 and whatever benefit the second party-workman is entitled to get that has been assessed and computed and Page 5 of 6 consequentially, direction has been issued to pay ₹1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, which is found to be just and proper by this Court. We do not find any error in the impugned order so as to cause interference by this Court.
Arguments
Heard Mr. C. Bidyabhusan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. S. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties. 3. The petitioner-workman (second party before the learned Industrial Tribunal) has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 27.09.2023 passed in I.D. Case No.45 of 2022, by which the learned P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, while allowing the said case, directed the opposite party herein (first party-management) to pay a compensation to the second party- workman to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement and back wages within a period of two months of the date of publication of the award in the official gazette and also directed the first party-management, being the principal employer, to ensure payment of the aforesaid amount to the second party- workman within the stipulated period by the contractor, or else it will pay the awarded compensation to the second party and Page 1 of 6 recover the same from the contractor in terms of Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . It was further directed in the event the award is not implemented within the stipulated time, the compensation amount would carry a simple interest of 6% per annum till it is realized from the first party- management. 4. Mr. C. Bidyabhusan, learned counsel appearing for the second party-workman contended that the aforementioned determination of compensation cannot be said to be justified, as the second party-workman is entitled to get Rs.3 lakhs and some odd, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
Decision
12. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Alok (M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 15-Feb-2024 18:24:33 Page 6 of 6