The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2025 12:31:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.13994 OF 2025 M/s. Scan Steel Limited, Sundargarh …. Petitioner Mr. Somanatha Mishra, Advocate -versus- Madan Kumar Behera …. Opp. Party In Person CORAM:
Decision
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 01.09.2025 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. Madan Kumar Behera, Opposite Party-Workman, by filing a self-attested copy of his Addhaar Card, appears in person. 3. Copy of the writ petition is served on Mr. Behera, the sole Opposite Party in Court today. On consent of learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Opposite Party, who appears in person, the writ petition is taken up for adjudication. 4. Order dated 9th April, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in ID Case No.03 of 2018 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby a direction has been made to the Management-Petitioner to produce the payment register pertaining to the period as mentioned in the petition filed by the Opposite Party-Workman. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the reference for adjudication of the Tribunal is as follows; “Whether the action of the management of M/s. Scan Steel Ltd. at Gangajal P.O. Biringatoli Kutra, district Sundargarh (Odisha) in terminating the services of Sri Madan Kumar Behera w.e.f. Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2025 12:31:02 16.10.2015 by way of refusal of employment is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 5.1. It is his submission that during pendency of the industrial dispute, the Workman-Opposite Party filed an application (At Annexure-3) with a prayer to call for certain documents from the Petitioner-Management. Objection to the said petition was also filed by the Management (at Annexure-4). Learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the objection raised by the Petitioner-Management, passed the impugned order at Annexure-5. 5.2. It is further submitted that the payment register of the year 2007 onwards is not necessary to be produced for adjudication of the reference. Since the Workman approached the Conciliation Officer in the year 2015, relevant payment register of the year 2015 was produced before the Tribunal for adjudication. It is also stated that the Petitioner had not submitted any joining report. Thus, the question of producing the said document does not arise at all. He also submits that in view of Section 13-A (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Management is not required to retain the registers including payment register beyond three years from the date of last entry in the said register(s). Although specific objection, to the petition filed by the Opposite Party-Workman for production of the document, was raised to that effect, but without considering the same, the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed. Learned Tribunal while adjudicating the matter has also not assigned as to how the documents sought to be produced by the Management are necessary for proper adjudication of the reference. Further, the Opposite Party-Workman has not stated in his petition regarding purpose of production of the payment register of the year 2007 onwards by the Management. Learned Tribunal Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2025 12:31:02 has passed a cryptic order directing the Petitioner to produce the said documents. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Mr. Behera, the Opposite Party, who appears in person vehemently objects to the same and submits that those documents are essential for just adjudication of the reference. The Management is knowingly suppressing those documents. He further submitted that although purpose of production of those documents was not stated in the petition under Annexure-3, but, those are necessary for just adjudication of the reference. Hence, he submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Behera, the Opposite Party and on perusal of the petition filed by the Opposite Party-Workman for production of the joining letter, payment register and salary increment letter from 2007 (February) to 2015 (October), it is apparent that purpose of production of these documents has not been stated in the petition. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that payment register of the year 2015 has already been filed before the Tribunal. Detailed objection has been filed by the Petitioner-Management specifically stating that those documents are not necessary for just adjudication of the reference. Further reference has been made to Section 13-A (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 stating that the payment registers are not required to be retained beyond three years from the date of last entry in the said registers. Those materials were not taken into consideration by learned Tribunal while adjudicating the petition under Annexure-3. Further, learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to how the documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the reference. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2025 12:31:02 8. In view of the above, this Court feels that the petition under Annexure-3 requires fresh adjudication providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 9th April, 2025 (Annexure-5) being cryptic and non-speaking one is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela for fresh adjudication of the petition under Annedxure-3 taking into consideration the objection filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-4 and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. Learned Tribunal is expected to pass a reasoned order on the petition under Annexure-3. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 4 of 4