Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K W.P.(C) NO.8253 OF 2023 In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. M/s.Aditya Aluminium, Lapanga : Petitioner -Versus- The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur & anr. : Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s.S.S.Tripathy, D.Pradhan, G.S.Das, S.K.Banta & P.Sethy For O.P.2 : M/s.R.N.Debata, P.Panigrahi, B.Sahu, P.Debata & C.K.Panda J U D G M E N T CORAM : JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Date of hearing & Judgment : 10.08.2023 1.
Decision
The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :- “It is, in the above facts and circumstances, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp.Parties, call for the records of I.D. Case No.3 of 2022 from the learned Labour Court/Opp.Party No.1 and after hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the order dtd.2.12.2022 (Annexure-1) and order dtd.2.3.2023 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Labour Court/Opp.Party No.1 in ID Case No.3 of 2022. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // And may order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case..” other such pass 2. Taking this Court to the factual position, it is stated that on initiation of an industrial adjudication, vide I.D.Case No.3/2022, the Management, Petitioner herein on its appearance has raised the question of maintainability of the I.D. Case keeping in view the beneficial provision through the Certified Standing Orders supporting the case of both sides in making available of an intra-Appeal provision involving the action involved therein. It is considering such an objection, there has been a decision on such objection and decided, vide the impugned order but against the Management-Petitioner holding that the question raised therein is a mixed question of fact and law resulting in filing of the Writ Petition. 3. On receipt of notice on the statement of claim, it appears, the Management-Petitioner at the threshold challenged the maintainability of the dispute itself. Taking this Court to the Petition raising the industrial dispute along with notice of the Labour Court, vide Annexure-3, the relief sought for therein vis-à-vis prayer and further the provision in the Certified Standing Orders binding on both sides, Mr.S.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of the Court to the ground raised in the application questioning the maintainability of the industrial adjudication raised in I.D. Case No.3 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // of 2022 and makes an attempt to satisfy the Court that the question raised since is directly falling through the provision in the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium, a decision could have been taken purely treating the issue involving a question of law. Taking this Court to the observations, it is contended, the Labour Court misdirected itself and gave an erroneous finding in the rejection of the application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding on the premises that there involves mixed question of fact and law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also taking this Court through the provision in the Certified Standing Orders attempted to satisfy that there is no involvement of fact while taking such a decision. 4. Mr.R.Debata, learned counsel for the Workman-O.P.2 attending through the Virtual Court proceeding at Sambalpur Centre taking this Court to the objection of the Workman to the application questioning maintainability of the I.D. proceeding, grounds therein while not disputing the provision at Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium having a clear intra-Appeal provision but however taking to the other pleas taken therein in the objection of the Workman, contended, the Workman contested the proceeding on the premises of the issue involving the question of fact and law. Taking this Court to the discussions by the Labour Court in the impugned Page 3 of 5 // 4 // order, Mr.Debata attempted to satisfy the Court that there has been lawful observation and there is no need for interfering in the impugned order. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Parties and the objection taken herein and in course of hearing, this Court has gone through the provision at Order 26 of the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium further also reading together with the provision at Order 25 therein. On perusal of both the orders, this Court finds, the Management may be justified in bringing such a serious question of law. For a justified decision required to be taken by the Labour Court, this Court is not delving into answering on such issue at this stage and leaving it open for a justified decision by Labour Court itself but after entering into further argument from both sides. 6. For the nature of dispute, there is no requirement of going or adverting through the facts involving the dispute. A decision can very well be taken simply going through the provision referred therein in the Certified Standing Orders. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court going through the discussions and observations finds, there has been mechanical consideration of the legal aspect involved herein. While declaring the decision unwarranted and in disapproval of the decision involved herein, this Court interfering with the impugned order at Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Annexure-1 and the consequential order at Annexure-2 sets aside both. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Sambalpur for re- adjudication the question raised in the application of the Petitioner at Annexure-3 herein after involving fresh argument of the Counsel appearing for both sides and taking into consideration the legal provision through the provisions in the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium. 7. Since the matter is remitted for re-consideration of the Labour Court, both the Management and the Workman are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Sambalpur either in person or through their representatives on 25th August, 2023 along with copy of this judgment. Decision on the question of maintainability should also be taken at least within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the Parties. 8. The Writ Petition succeeds to the extent indicated herein above. There is no order as to cost. (Biswanath Rath) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Aug-2023 15:03:38 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 10th August, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy. Page 5 of 5