High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH C CK IGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.18268 of 2020 W Dayanidhi Samal another Samal and ..... Petitioners -versus- Manoj Ku. Nayak Nayak and others ..... Opposite Parties Oppo Advocates appea appeared in this case: For petitioners vocate : Mr. Somnath Mishra, Advocate For opposite part te parties : Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate (for Opp. Party nos. 1 to 67) Mr. L.K. Moharana, Advocate (for Opp. Party no.68) CORAM: THE HON'BL
Legal Reasoning
NHA N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'B ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ------------------------- Date of ------------------------- ARINDAM SIN J U D G M E N T ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ate of hearing and Judgment: 3rd July, 2024 , 2024. ----------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Mishra Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of p alf of petitioners and submits, und ts, under challenge is order dated 16th January anuary, 2020 of W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020 the Labour Cou r Court computing purported benefit and t and directing payment to the w the workmen by, inter alia, his clients. The . The order was made in miscell iscellaneous proceeding resorted to by the y the workman under section 33 47. on 33-C (2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. He submits ubmits, there are several grounds of challenge. lenge. Firstly, it will appear from r from statement of claim filed by the workma orkman that the claim is against gainst opposite party nos.2 and 3 therein, rein, where the principal employ mployer was arraigned as opposite party no.1. 1. Purported claims of the wo he workmen were anyhow not made against h ainst his clients, opposite party no arty nos.4 and 5 in the proceeding. Impugned ugned award is bad on that grou t ground alone. On query from Court he su he submits, his clients’ went un nt unrepresented before the Labour Court. ourt. Secondly, sub-section (1-A A) in section 16, Payment of Bonus Ac us Act, 1965 is clearly applicable licable in respect of the claims made on leave leave salary and bonus for period period 1st April, 2013 to 31st March, 2018. 018. He draws attention to parag
Decision
paragraph-14 in the writ petition, wherein is h in is his clients’ submission that t that their establishment was started in year year 2013. The Labour Court d ourt did not satisfy itself that bonus was s was payable, considering his c g his client was established in the commencin mencing year of claim. Thirdly, in rdly, in computing and directing on purported ported claims of W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020 leave salary and b y and bonus, the Labour Court did not obtain s btain satisfaction that the workmen rkmen had put in continuous service. This is an is is an omission that leads to per to perversity. The order be set aside. Fourth Fourthly, on his clients’ applicatio plication opposite party no.68 was added. Said d. Said opposite party is succes successor-in-interest of opposite party no. y no.1 in the proceeding. With . Without prejudice he submits, added oppo opposite party owes substantia stantial amount to his client, on services rvices rendered subsequently and tly and up to year 2020. There be direction irection for said opposite party to arty to liquidate the outstanding, to enable hi ble his client to comply with im ith impugned order, in event challenge enge thereto is unsuccessful. 3. Mr. Moha Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on s on behalf of opposite party no arty nos.1 to 67, the workers, less two of them f them, who had computation of n of their dues and direction for payment t ment thereof by impugned order. order. He demonstrates from the order, pa er, paragraph-5, there is clear fi lear finding by the Labour Court that his c his clients are employees of pe of petitioners. This finding is in respect of ct of the period claimed. He subm e submits further, petitioners chose to go unre o unrepresented before the Labou Labour Court and now cannot seek to take adv ke advantage of the omission by i n by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, t ourt, to pray for W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020 restoration of the matter. The computation was duly duly made on impugned order. order. The writ petition be dismissed. 4. Mr. Mohar Moharana, learned advocate appears on behalf behalf of added opposite party an arty and submits, his client, being successor-in in-interest of opposite party no arty no.1 in the miscellaneous proceeding, reli g, relies on case made out by said by said opposite party and reflected in impug impugned order, paragraph-3. He 3. He disputes there is any outstanding payab payable by his client to petitione titioners, for any period. 5. We are in j are in judicial review over order dated 16th Janu January, 2020. Our function is n on is not that of the appeal Court, to go into t into the merits. On first content ontention regarding claim made by the workm orkmen against opposite party no arty nos.2 and 3 in the proceeding and not petit t petitioners, we find the contentio ntention stands answered by paragraph-5 of the of the order. On second contentio tention, regarding application of section 16(1 n 16(1-A) in the Act of 1965, the 65, there is no disclosure made in the writ p writ petition to support it. The . The averment relied upon in paragraph agraph-14 is a submission. It is . It is not even a statement on oath. Same Same is wholly insufficient for u t for us to rely upon and set aside impugned o ned order made in the proceeding ceeding, where petitioners, though were partie parties therein, went unrepresent resented. W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020 6. Petitioners ioners also contend the Labour Court did n did not obtain satisfaction that t that the workmen had rendered continuous ser ous service. This was to be establ established on finding of facts. The workme orkmen asserted that they were w ere working in the period. They produced doc ed documents to show that there there was agreement acknowledging they had ey had rendered service, to recor record settlement on issues arising therefro erefrom. In the circumstances, w ces, where no dispute was raised in rega regard to the workmen renderi endering continuous service, we cannot say in t ay in that regard that the Labour abour Court committed illegality or the orde e order contains egality. material illegality 7. Scope of t e of the writ petition is challenge to impugn impugned order. Petitioner’s s last contention, of added opposite par e party owing last substantial amou amount for services rendered to it up to yea to year 2020 is clearly outside its side its scope. Acting on application made by p by petitioners, we added opposi opposite party no.68 but that procedural directi direction cannot amount to enlarg enlarging scope of the writ petition. Necessarily ssarily there has to be enlargemen rgement of scope if the contention is to be a be adjudicated because on behal behalf of said opposite party, submission was o n was of dispute. W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020 The writ pe writ petition is without merit and the same is di e is dismissed. (Arindam Sin Sinha ) Judge ahoo ) (M.S. Sahoo Judge 8. Prasant Gs/Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 04-Jul-2024 15:53:37 W.P.(C) no.18268 of 2020