The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.760 OF 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ******* Ashok Nath …. Petitioner -versus- 1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Sundergarh 2. M/s. Anu Engineering Works, Kansbahal, Sundargarh 3. Larsen and Toubro Limited, Kansbahal 4. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Odisha 5. Labour Commissioner, Odisha 6. District Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Rourkela, Sundargarh …. Opp. Parties Advocate for the parties: For Petitioner : Mr. Durga Charan Ojha, Advocate For Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate (for Opposite Party No.2) Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, A.S.C.
Decision
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Heard and Disposed of on : 21.08.2025 JUDGMENT By the Bench:- 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail the award dated 3rd May, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 1 of 7 Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela (for brevity „learned Tribunal‟) in Industrial Dispute Case No. 02 of 2014 in a reference under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”). The term of reference for adjudication before the learned Tribunal was as under; “Whether the action of the Management of M/s- Anu Engineering Works, At/po- Kansbahal, Dist- Sundargarh a contractor of M/s- L&T Ltd., Kansbahal Works in terminating the services of Sri Ashok Nath, Helper w.e.f. 01.10.2011 is legal and /or justified? If not, what relief Sri Nath is entitled to?” 3. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the Parties, evidence on record and arguments advanced, the learned Tribunal held that the termination of the workman by the Management-M/s Anu Engineering Works (for brevity „Management No.2‟) was void ab- initio and directed for payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty thousand) in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 3.1 The case of the Petitioner-Workman before the learned Tribunal was that he was engaged as a driver of piloting trucks in fabrication shop of M/s. Larsen and Tubro Limited, Kansbahal (for brevity „Management No.1‟) w.e.f. 2nd August, 2004 and he worked till 30th September, 2011 being engaged by the Management No.2- Opposite Party No.2, namely, M/s. Anu Engineering Works, Kansbahal, a contractor under Management No.1. As per the direction of Management No.1, the Petitioner-Workman was performing his job. The Workman was not being paid wages as per the settlement and minimum wages as fixed by Government of Odisha. During the month of September, 2011, eighty numbers of W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 contract labourers raised their demands for bonus/exgratia before Management No.1 including the Petitioner-Workman. Thus, they were disallowed entry by Management No.1 to the plant premises. Thereafter, the Management No.2 refused employment to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1st October, 2011. Before termination, the Workman was neither charge-sheeted nor paid any compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act, which is the mandate of law. Hence, the Workman contended that the entire action of the Management No.2 was not only whimsical but also arbitrary and inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Act. Hence, he prays for his reinstatement with full back wages. 4. The Management No.1, namely, L and T Ltd. filed its written statement stating that the Workman was working as an un- skilled worker under it being engaged and paid wages accordingly by the Management No.2 through which he was engaged. The Workman was in habit of leaving the workplace and roaming inside the plant premises. On 15th September, 2011 the Workman entered the plant and worked for about two hours and thereafter left the place of work without permission. Under the leadership of the Workman, about 80 contract labourers assembled in front of the personnel department of the Management No.1 and demanded 20% of bonus and ex-gratia. The Contractor through which the Workman was engaged was apprised of such misconduct. But the Workman continued the demonstration and gheraoed the officials of the personnel department, for which he was issued with charge sheet. However, he refused to receive the charge sheet and did not participate in the proceedings. The Workman was never retrenched by the Management No.1. On the other hand, he voluntarily W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 abandoned his service w.e.f. 16th September, 2011. As such there was no valid reason to pay him retrenchment compensation and to grant the relief as claimed. 5. The Management No.2 in its written statement also reiterated the averments made in the written statement by the principal employer Management No.1. It was further stated therein that on 15th September, 2011 the Workman entered the plant and worked for about two hours and thereafter left the place of work without permission. Under the leadership of the workman, about 80 contract labourers assembled in front of the personnel department of the Management No.1 and demanded 20% of bonus and ex-gratia. The Management No.2, therefore, prayed for answering the reference in favour of Management No.2. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the following issues; “I: Whether the reference is maintainable? II: Whether there is cause of action? III: Whether the action of the management of M/s Anu Engineering Works, a contractor of M/s L&T Ltd, Kansbahal Works in terminating the services of the 2nd party-workman with effect from 01.10.2011 is legal and /or justified and if the 2nd party-workman had voluntarily abstained from his duty to cover up his misconduct as alleged by the 1st party-management? IV: If not, what relief Sri Nath is entitled to?” 7. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Workman vehemently submitted that the Petitioner was drawing wages of semi-skilled worker at the rate of Rs.116/- per day. He also drew attention to Annexure-3 series to the writ petition in support of his submission that the Workman was getting Rs.116/- per day towards W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 wages. It is his submission that while calculating the lumpsum compensation the learned Tribunal should have made an inquiry under Section 11(d) of the Act with regard to the nature of job being discharged by the Workman and the salary paid to him. Without conducting any such inquiry learned Tribunal relying upon stray documents, came to an erroneous conclusion that the Workman was getting wages @ Rs.80 per day as an un-skilled labour. He further submits that in the conciliation failure report, the Conciliation Officer had categorically stated that the Petitioner was discharging duties of a semi-skilled worker. Thus, the Petitioner even if not entitled to reinstatement but he is entitled to higher lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 8. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2- Management No.2 submits that the Petitioner was being paid daily wages of Rs.80/-. The same is apparent from the documents exhibited by the Workman himself. Exhibit-1 and 3 clearly disclosed that the Workman was getting wages @ Rs.80/- per day. Although the Petitioner relies upon Annexure-3 series, but the said documents were not exhibited before learned Tribunal. Thus, learned Tribunal had no occasion to consider those documents. Hence, he submits that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in directing payment of lumpsum wages of Rs.3,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 9. None appears for the Opposite Party No.3-Management No.1 although notices were issued to it. 10. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the materials on record. W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 11. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner- Workman intended to exhibit the documents at Annexure-3 series to the writ petition but learned Tribunal did not allow the same as the Management Nos. 1 and 2 objected to the same challenging its genuineness as those documents did not bear any signatures or stamp. The deposition of the Workman reveals that he exhibited his pay slips. The pay slips were exhibited as Exhibit 1. It further appears from the impugned award under Annexure-1 that learned Tribunal relied upon Exhibit- 1 and 3. The documents, Exhibit-1 produced by the Petitioner-Workman clearly proves that he was getting wages at the rate of Rs.80/- per day and Exhibit-3 produced by the Petitioner-Workman reveals that the Petitioner earned Rs.31,227/- towards his wages for 285 days w.e.f. 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010 with bonus (20%) of Rs.6,245/-. There was no material on record before learned Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the Petitioner was getting daily wage @ Rs.116/- as alleged in the writ petition. Thus, learned Tribunal had no occasion to consider Annexure-3 series which were not part of its record. 12. On the materials available on record, learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,50,000/- towards a lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The learned Tribunal also directed that the said amount should be paid within a period of one month, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of actual payment. 13. Since the finding is based on record and this Court does not find any material which would warrant interference with the award W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 under Annexure-1. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 21st August, 2025//Subhalaxmi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Aug-2025 19:29:27 W.P.(C). No.760 of 2024 Page 7 of 7