The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) Nos.14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 (Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) WP(C) No.14178 of 2020 Kanhu Charan Sahoo …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar 2. The Registrar, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate Assisted by: Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Guru Prasad Mohanty, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) WP(C) No.5059 of 2020 The Utkal University, Represented by the Registrar, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar -Versus- 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner Page 1 of 13 2. Kanhu Charan Sahu 3. The Govt. of Odisha, Labour and ESI Department, represented by the Secretary, Bhubaneswar. …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Guru Prasad Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3) Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate Assisted by: Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 09.10.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the Bench: JUDGMENT 1. Perused the Mediation Report dated 17th September, 2025 at Flag-B. Learned Mediator submitted a failure report. Hence, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up on merit. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the award dated 30th October, 2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) in ID Case No.22 of 2017. Hence, both the WP(C) Nos. 14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Page 2 of 13 writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. WP(C) No.14178 of 2020 has been filed by the Workman- Sri Kahnu Charan Sahoo, whereas WP(C) No. 5059 of 2020 has been filed by the Management of Utkal University assailing the selfsame award. For convenience of discussion, parties are described as per their status before learned Tribunal. 3. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case is that the Workman, namely, KanhuCharanSahoo was engaged under the Management of Utkal University on daily wage basis. He was engaged on 11th March, 1987 with a direction to work at Hostel No.3 w.e.f. 5th November, 1987. It is alleged by the Management that the Workman abandoned his job w.e.f. 9th January, 1991. On the other hand, the Workman alleged that he was terminated from service w.e.f. 9th January, 1991 without complying with the mandatory provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For brevity, ‘the Act’). In the year 2017, the Workman moved the labour machinery for redressal of his grievances. A conciliation proceeding was initiated and a failure report was ultimately submitted to the appropriate Government by the Conciliation Officer. Accordingly, the industrial dispute was referred to learned Tribunal for adjudication to answer the following reference. “Whether the action of the Management of Utkal in University, At/P.O. VaniVihar, Bhubaneswar terminating Sri the workman KanhuCharanSahoo by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 09.01.1991 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?” services the of WP(C) Nos. 14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Page 3 of 13 4. The Workman filed his statement of claim narrating the fact that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the Management vide order dated 11th March, 1987 with a direction to work at Hostel No. 3 w.e.f. 5th November, 1987. It was also stated therein that the Workman rendered continuous services under the Management being posted at different places as per different orders issued by the Management. His name was placed at Serial No.114 of the Gradation List of Class-IV employees, which was prepared on the basis of seniority for the purpose of regularization of employees against available vacancies as and when arose. When the Workman was so continuing, the Management without assigning any reason restrained him (the Workman) to perform his duty w.e.f. 9th January, 1991 which occasioned termination of his services. Before termination the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act was not followed. Hence, he prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. 5. The Management filed its written statement stating that the claim of the Workman was not maintainable as the Management had no role to play in the matter of employment or non-employment of the Workman. The Workman was working under the control and supervision of the Security Officer, who was working under the Management on being deputed from the Government of Odisha. No office order was issued to the Workman by the Management either appointing him as a DLR or terminating his services as claimed by him. It was also specifically stated in the written statement that the WP(C) Nos. 14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Page 4 of 13 Workman having left the work at his own volition on 9th January, 1991 without any intimation to the controlling officer, the question of complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Act did not arise at all. It was also stated that although the name of the Workman was at Serial No.114 of the List prepared by the Management as per seniority, but as he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty, the question of his regularization could not also be considered. Thus, the Management contended that the Workman was not entitled to any relief as claimed. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues as under. “ Whether the case is maintainable? (i) (ii) Whether the second party workman voluntarily abandoned the service since 09.01.1991? (iii) Whether the action of the Management of Utkal University, At/P.O. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of the workman Sri Kanhu Charan Sahoo by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 09.01.1991 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief, Sri Sahoo is entitled to?” (iv) 6.1 In support of his case, the Workman examined himself as W.W.1. and placed reliance on the copies of the documents such as, Office Order dated 3rd November, 1987 (Ext.1), Office Order dated 2nd January, 1988 (Ext.2), Office Order dated 11th May, 1989 (Ext.3), Office Order dated 27th October, 1990 (Ext.4), list of daily wage employees as per seniority (Ext.5) and information obtained by him under the RTI Act (Ext.6). On behalf of the Management, the Registrar of Utkal University WP(C) Nos. 14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Page 5 of 13 was examined as M.W.1, who proved the copy of the Orissa Universities Recruitment and Promotion of Non-Teaching Employees Rules, 1991 as Ext. A. 7. Considering the rival cases of the parties and evidence on record, learned Tribunal held that the dispute is maintainable. It was further held that it is not a case of abandonment of service by the Workman. Rather, it is a case of refusal of employmentto the second party-Workman which amounts to retrenchment, as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act. It was also held that since provision under Section 25-F of the Act was not followed, the termination was neither legal nor justified. However, answering the Issue No.4, learned Tribunal held that the Workman is entitled to ₹50,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Assailing the said award, the present writ petitions have been filed. 8. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Workman vehemently argued that since the Workman has already attained the age of superannuation, question of his reinstatement does not arise at present. Relying upon the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Limited and another; (1999) 6 SCC 82, Mr. Das learned Senior Advocated submitted that the Workman is entitled to 60% of the back wages till the date of the award and full back wages till his reinstatement. Since the Workman has already attained the age of superannuation and question of his reinstatement does not arise at present, he is WP(C) Nos. 14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Page 6 of 13 entitled to full back wages till today. Relying upon the case of Ajaib Singh (supra), he further submitted that the provision of Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act as held therein. In the case of Ajaib Singh (supra) Hon’ble the Supreme Court discussing the scope of the Act at paragraph-5 and applicability of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Act (Industrial Dispute Act, 1947) and discussing the case law in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal