The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10147 OF 2023 Sree Metaliks Ltd. (SML House), Keonjhar …. Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K.Chand, Adv. -versus- The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Party(s) Mr.S.Ghosh,AGA Mr.S.Mishra,Adv (for O.P.2) CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Order No. 03.
Decision
ORDER 25.08.2023 1. Appearance memo filed in Court today by Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 be kept on record. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:- <It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application and issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show-cause as to why the writ petition shall not be allowed and if the Opp. Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient or false cause, may be pleased to allow the writ application by quashing the impugned order as at Annexure-1; And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case; And for such act of kindness the Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.= 4. Background involving the case appears to be Opposite Party No.2, as a first step claiming to be a Workman, filed an application Page 1 of 4 // 2 // under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act claiming wages of Rs.71,420/- for the month of October, 2021 along with notice pay of Rs.82,000/- for month, retrenchment compensation for 38 days amounting to Rs.49,450/- and un-utilised leave salary at the rate 20 days per year, i.e., Rs.46,467/- totaling Rs.2,49,087/-. This application is registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.65 of 2021 on the file of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. Management appearing in the proceeding filed its show cause seriously questioning the entertainability of the 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act proceeding, mainly on the premises, looking to the role as well as salary received by the so-called workman, Opposite Party No.2 herein cannot be termed as <workman= under the provision of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. 5. In course of submission, learned counsel for the Management, however, suggested receiving of salary at higher rate may not be itself taking out a person from the definition of <workman=. It is ultimately the role performed by such employee can lead if a person is workman or not? Similarly on the issue of entitlement decided by the Labour Court in the impugned order, this Court finds from the submission of the learned counsel for the Management that there is no serious objection to the entitlement except raising the submission herein that even though there may not be serious dispute in the entitlement adjudicated by the Labour Court but considering the jurisdictional aspect, Opposite Party No.2 should have visited appropriate forum to make himself entitled to such benefit. It is keeping in view the above background, this Court proceeds as follows:- Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 however taking this Court to the pleadings of Opposite Party No.2 Page 2 of 4 // 3 // in the application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act and the development taken place in such proceeding at the same time reading through the observation made by the learned Labour Court attempted to satisfy that the impugned order is a reasoned one and need no interference. Mr. Ghosh, learned State Counsel took support of the impugned order through the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel and claimed the Writ Petition ought to be dismissed for having no merit. 6. Considering the main thrust of argument of Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner, for the Management through their show cause raised the question of entertainability of the proceeding for the workman herein not being a workman as functioning in the managerial capacity. Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the observation of the industrial adjudicator in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 urged that there is no proper consideration of the pleadings as well as evidence available on record. 7. In course of submission, Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner however brings a further challenge to the proceeding on the premises while strongly disputing the entitlement aspect but submits that since the workman herein is in entitlement to bring appropriate proceeding for such entitlement, no benefit should have been at least granted by way of an exercise undertaken in Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 8. Considering the aforesaid objection, this Court here finds, finally there is involvement of a meagre sum of Rs.1,22,980/- involving two components; one for sum of Rs.73,780/- towards unpaid wages and the second one Rs.49,200/- towards un-utilised Page 3 of 4 // 4 // leave salary, there is of course no serious allegation and/or objection on the entitlement of the workman-Opposite Party No.2 on the above two heads. This Court here finds, for there is entitlement of above amount in favour of Opposite Party No.2 otherwise leaving the matter for adjudication of any other authority shall not only be abuse of process and wastage of time, accordingly this Court finds there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order particularly for limited nature of exercise of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court while declining to interfere with the impugned order for a meagre amount involved therein and there is no serious dispute on Opposite Party No.2 would have achieved such relief through other suitable adjudication, while leaving the question raised herein on entertainability of the dispute open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceeding, this Court also observes, confirmation of relief in favour of Opposite Party No.2 herein in the peculiar circumstance shall not stand as a precedent for any other proceedings. 9. With this observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. S.Dash Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:20:58 (Biswanath Rath) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge Page 4 of 4