Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K W.P.(C) NO. 2274 OF 2023 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The Management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela : Petitioner -Versus- Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela and another : Opp. Party(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. D. P. Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. P. Panda, Adv. Mr. S. Panda, Adv. Mr. A. Acharya, Adv. For O.P. No.1 For O.P. No.2 : Mr. U. K. Sahoo, ASC None J U D G M E N T CORAM : JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Date of Hearing & Judgment : 28.08.2023 1. Considering the ex-parte nature of impugned judgment involved herein in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947, this Court was inclined to issue notice on admission to find the determination of the dispute at the earliest by its order Page 1 of 6 // 2 // dated 21.06.2023. Notice being issued pursuant to the direction and notice came returned <unserved= on the workman finding workman need to be heard in such matter as ultimately in the event of interference with the order, the workman was to suffer, further finding early resolve of matter while directing for issuing notice, this Court permitted the Management herein to issue notice on Opposite Party No.2 by Speed Post/Registered Post with A.D., fixing short returnable date. At the same time finding a long term battle between the parties, this Court also permitted the Management to take out notice on Opposite Party No.2 by way of paper publication in a local daily on Opposite Party No.2, both in the publication at his permanent address as well as at his place of service. 2. Consequent upon above direction, it appears, there has been paper publications in both the permanent address of the workman- Opposite Party No.2 as well as the service place of the workman herein in multiple publications. Copy of all such publications is already on record. Getting into the advertisement made for the purpose, this Court finds, all such publications had clear indication for appearance of Opposite Party No.2 and though nearly one and half months have passed in the meantime, unfortunately there is no Page 2 of 6 // 3 // appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 as on date. Finding there is service of notice sufficient on the workman-Opposite Party No.2 and keeping in view the nature of dispute involved herein particularly an ex-parte impugned order passed by the Competent Authority, to avoid any further wastage of time, this Court feels it appropriate to proceed in the final outcome of the matter for non- cooperation of the Opposite Party No.2. 3. The matter is taken up for final hearing only on the submission of Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for the Management besides also taking into account the plea of the parties in the authority below as well as the findings and observation of the authority below involving the impugned order. 4. In course of submission, Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the impugned order while raising serious question on the exercise aspect with the industrial adjudicator, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela particularly keeping in view a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act <as to for the nature of the proceeding if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to go into appropriateness and/or inappropriateness in the disciplinary proceeding?=, learned counsel also brings to the notice of the Court the nature of disposal of the proceeding being Page 3 of 6 // 4 // ex-parte particularly the workman also remaining ex-parte in the I.D. Misc. Case No.46 of 2000. 5. This Court finds, undisputedly the proceeding was decided though against the Management, but however, in non-cooperation of the workman. This Court finds, there is definite raising of above serious question required to be adjudicated. 6. On perusal of the impugned order this Court finds, even though there is no framing of such question and in spite of serious question raised by the Management, there has been no endeavor on such aspect by the Industrial Adjudicator. Looking to the limited nature of proceeding involving Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, there should have been involvement of serious question as to <whether the industrial adjudicator is competent enough to have the competency to find appropriateness or inappropriateness in the disciplinary proceeding involved therein?= For there is ex-parte disposal and there is no adjudication of serious question, without expressing in any opinion on the question involved raised herein at this stage, this Court interferes with the impugned order at this stage. Remanding the matter to the industrial adjudicator to involve it in re-adjudication of the proceeding while also giving answer on Page 4 of 6 // 5 // the question framed hereinabove but also in the involvement of the Management as well as the workman. 7. For the observation made hereinabove, this Court finds in spite of all efforts, it became difficult in bringing the workman to the contest fora. From the impugned order it also appears the workman was not appearing either in the Tribunal. The position of the workman is unable to be assessed at this stage. Keeping this in view this Court while re-opening the I.D. Misc. Case No.46 of 2000 directs the Management-Petitioner to appear before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela on 11.09.2023 along with certified copy of this order. On its appearance the Tribunal shall do well in directing the Management to take out notice of the proceeding in I.D. Misc. Case No.46 of 2000 by special messenger at the cost of the Management in all the available addresses of the workman to ensure there is sufficiency of notice on the workman involved herein 8. Before parting with the case this Court observes, observations, if any, made herein shall be for the purpose of adjudication of the case at hand and there shall be no waging of such observations in fresh adjudication of I.D. Misc. Case No.46 of 2000. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 9. The Writ Petition succeeds but to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. (M.S. Sahoo) Judge (Biswanath Rath) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 28th August, 2023/ Swarna Prava Dash, Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Sep-2023 18:08:06 Page 6 of 6