The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13964 of 2023 The Management of M/s. Prasad Industries and Another …. Petitioners Mr. S. P. Mishra, Senior Advocate -Versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar & Another …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bibhudhananda Muduli, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.09.2023 02. 1. Petitioners in this writ application pray for a direction to set aside the order dated 20th February, 2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.94 of 2002 wherein the Petitioner-Management has been directed to pay Rs.1, 17,995/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Five).(i.e. Rs.39,525/- towards back wages + Rs.63,470/- towards wages + Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost) to the Opposite Party- Workman within a period of two months from the date of the order. Page 1 of 5 2. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that Opposite Party No.2-Workman being aggrieved by the order of termination of the Petitioner- Management moved the Labour machinery and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to answer the reference with regard to legality and justifiability of the termination of the Opposite Party No.2. The said reference was registered as I.D. Case No. 109 of 1992. In due course, an ex-parte award dated 7th December, 1998 was passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar which was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13047 of 2007. The writ application was disposed of on 03.05.2010 with the following direction, “The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 as well as the ex parte award passed in favour of the workman and directing that the management should be given an opportunity of hearing and the learned Presiding Officer shall rehear the I.D. Case No.109 of 1992 afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. This order shall be subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the opp. Party- workman within a period of four weeks from today. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 21.06.2020 when the petitioner- management shall produce the receipt before the learned Presiding Officer showing payment of cost to the opp. Party-workman. The cost imposed may be paid to the learned counsel appearing for the opp. Party-workman before this Court. Page 2 of 5 As the I.D. Case relates to the year 1992, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court shall do well to dispose of the case finally by the end of this year.” 3. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and was adjudicated afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Subsequently, on 12th November, 2010 a fresh award was passed on contest with the following order. “9. Hence ordered: the That termination of service of Sri Prasanna Kumar Patra, Typist by the management Industrial Estate, Industries, of M/s. Prasad Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar with effect from 12.8.91 is illegal and unjustified. The workman Sri Patra is entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The management is directed to implement this Award within a period of one month from the date of its publication in the official Gazette, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum till its realization.” 4. However, before the award dated 12th November, 2010 could be passed, the Opposite Party No.2 initiated I.D. Misc. Case No. 94 of 2002 under Section 32-C(2) of the Act for computation of back wages on the basis of the ex-parte award. After passing of the award on contest, the I.D. Misc. Case No. 94 of 2002 becomes otiose as it was initiated on the basis of an ex-parte award which has already been set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13047 of 2007. Page 3 of 5 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the award dated 12th November, 2010 passed subsequently in I.D. Case No. 109 of 1992 has already been complied with and he refers to Annexures 4 and 5 series disclosing payment of Rs.43, 600/- (Rupees Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred) to the Opposite Party in compliance of the award subsequently passed on contest in I.D. Case No. 109 of 1992. But the Opposite Party No.2-Workman with a malafide intention continued to pursue I.D. Misc. Case No.94 of 2002 and the impugned order has been passed. It is in submission that since the I.D. Misc. Case was initiated on the basis of the ex-parte award, which has already been set aside by this Court as stated above, the proceeding under Section 32-C(2) of the Act and the order passed in are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Muduli, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Workman on the other hand submits that by the time, the ex-parte award was set aside by this Court, the Opposite Party No.2 had adduced evidence in the matter. Thus, on the basis of the material available on record, the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that the Petitioners for the reason best known to them did not bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the Labour Court. Scrutinizing the evidence on record, learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order under Annexure-7. He however, submits that the I.D. Misc. Case No.94 of 2002 was initiated on the basis of the ex-parte award passed in I.D. Case No. 109 of 1992, which has already been set aside. Page 4 of 5 7. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar proceeded with I.D. Misc. Case No. 94 of 2002 which was initiated on the basis of an ex-parte award. The said award has already been set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13047 of 2007. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, subsequent award has already been passed and it has already been complied with by the Petitioner- Management. Thus, I.D. Misc. Case No. 94 of 2002 initiated on the basis of ex-parte award was not maintainable and the order passed therein under Annexure-7 is vitiated. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-7 being not sustainable, is set aside. 9. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Sep-2023 12:10:06 (R.K. Pattanaik) Page 5 of 5