The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9077 of 2018 Nabaghana Dalai …. -Versus- Petitioner Brundaban Dalai and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case : For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Parties: Mr. Srikar Kumar Rath, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and Judgment: 20th March, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 31st March, 2018 passed by the Labour Court in ID Misc. Case no.12 of 2015 on contention that the order is illegal. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on his behalf and submits, firstly, his client had no connection with the workmen. There was no employer- Page 1 of 6 employee relationship. His client being a local person was engaged by the contractor to supervise the work. The workmen cannot claim wages from his client. Secondly and without prejudice, there was no computation made. Ext.3 in the proceeding, relied upon by the Labour Court, has nothing to do with the workmen inasmuch as there is no mention of all or any of them in the document. As such, reliance by the Labour Court on it was reliance or irrelevant evidence. He seeks interference. 2. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears for the workmen including opposite party nos.4, 16, 17 and 19. Opposite party no.43 is the contractor, who was deleted by the Labour Court and, Mr. Mohapatra submits, has repeatedly avoided service of the writ petition. In this context paragraphs 2 and 3, from our order dated 9th February, 2024 are reproduced below. “2. The registry has made note. It appears from note sheet there was direction for issuance of notice to all opposite parties. Appearance entered is on behalf of opposite party nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 to 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 31, 33 to 40. Order sheet bears record of valid service on opposite party no.3. AD card has been returned WP(C) no. 9077 of 2018 Page 2 of 6 after service on opposite party nos. 6, 8, 22, 28, 32, 41 and 42. Unserved postal article in respect of opposite party no.43 is in the file bearing endorsement ‘No such addressee in this place’. Lastly, neither AD card nor unserved notice has been received against opposite party nos. 4, 16, 17 and 19. 3. In view of aforesaid petitioner will put in requisites for fresh service on opposite party nos. 4, 16, 17 and 19. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite parties who have entered appearance and submits, in impugned award itself there is record of deletion of opposite party no.2 therein, who is opposite party no.43 herein. Mr. Pasayat submits, his client will put in requisites for fresh service on opposite party no.43 as well. The requisites be accepted for issuance of fresh notice.” We are satisfied that notice is sufficient in the writ petition. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate on it. 3. Mr. Rath submits, the Labour Court relied on cogent evidence being ‘Chukti Patra’ dated 1st September, 2014 carrying clear admission by petitioner that ₹13,41,772/- in aggregate was payable to the workmen. This document could WP(C) no. 9077 of 2018 Page 3 of 6 not be impeached by petitioner in the proceeding before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, there should not be interference in judicial review. 4. On query from Court Mr. Mohapatra submits, though it is a purported ‘Chukti Patra’, inasmuch as it was got signed in blank, his client did not lodge any complaint in respect thereof with any authority. He however submits, none of the workmen are party to the ‘Chukti Patra’. They cannot urge it to be an admission of their claim made by his client, by the document. 5. Sub-section(2) in section 33-C of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides, inter alia, where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be decided by the Labour Court. It appears by impugned order exactly that has happened. The workmen made a claim saying, of the sum that was due to them, ₹28,08,228/- was paid by petitioner leaving ₹18,91,772/- as unpaid. The Labour Court relying upon the ‘Chukti Patra’ (ext.3 in the proceeding) held on proof of admission, made thereby by petitioner that ₹13,41,772/- was payable. Said Court directed accordingly. WP(C) no. 9077 of 2018 Page 4 of 6 Thus, the question in respect of the amount of money payable was answered. Impugned order is good with regard to power of the Labour Court to have made it. 6. The ‘Chukti Patra’ appears to be a declaration made by petitioner. In it, he said he would pay ₹ 13,41,772/- to brother of one of the workmen. We will not accept submission of petitioner that it was got executed in blank inasmuch as, no protest was lodged by him. Furthermore, the ‘Chukti Patra’ says it was made in the police station, in respect of the labour dues. Furthermore, the contents were written on stamp paper, purchased by petitioner himself. Admission unless explained is good proof as per law of evidence. There is no explanation to explain away this admission of liability made by petitioner. The omission stands demonstrated by paragraph 5 of the petition, by which, inter alia, the document stood introduced. The paragraph is reproduced below. “5. That the applicants below examined four witnesses as AWs 1 to 4 and filed documents which have been marked as Exts. 1 to 3 on their behalf. Ext. 1 is the personal copy of compromise entered into between AW 4 and OP No. 1 Ext.2 is the personal copy of acknowledgement dated WP(C) no. 9077 of 2018 Page 5 of 6 03.12.2012 made by the opp. party no. 1 for unpaid wages and Ext.3 is the personal copy of agreement dated 01.09.2014 made by the opp. Party no.1.The opp. party no.1 on the other hand examined himself as OPW.1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence from his side. (emphasis supplied) 7. For reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Jyoti Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Mar-2024 19:02:31 WP(C) no. 9077 of 2018 Page 6 of 6