The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 3330 OF 2017 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ******* State Board, Social Welfare represented through its Secretary, At- A/64, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurdha. -versus- 1. Sanjubala Sahoo, Ex-Peon, D/o Bhikari Charan Sahoo, C/o Augasti Sahoo, Plot No. 113, Pandabnagar, P.O. Badagada, Tankapani Road, Pin-751018, Bhubaneswar, Khurdha, Odisha. 2. Managing Partner, M/s Jagannath Security Service, At-chakeisiani, P.O. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurdha, 3. Chair Person, Odisha State Social Represented Board, Welfare through its Secretary, At-A/64, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurdha 4. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 35, Goutam Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751 014. Advocate for the parties: …. Petitioner …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjaya Kumar Das, Advocate (for Opp. Party No.1) Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, Advocate (for Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattanaik, A.G.A. (for Opp. Party No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO W.P.(C). No. 28734 of 2020 Page 1 of 6
Decision
Heard and Disposed of on : 21.07.2025 JUDGMENT By the Bench:- 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 31st December, 2016 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 90 of 2015. 3. Brief description of relevant facts for adjudication of this case is as follows:- 4. The Second Party-Worman was engaged with the First Party Management No.2 (for brevity ‘Management No.2’), namely, Social Welfare Board, Odisha, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar through outsourcing agency, namely, M/s. Jagannath Security Service, Bhubaneswar-First Party Management No.1 (for brevity ‘Management No.1’). She was terminated from service with effect from 30th June, 2015. Being aggrieved, she approached the Conciliation Officer against such order of termination for redressal of her grievances, but without any result. Hence, she filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming reinstatement in service with full back wages. The said application was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No.90 of 2015 on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. Consequently, the impugned award under Annexure-7 was passed directing both the Managements to reinstate the Workman-Opposite Party with full W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017 Page 2 of 6 back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette failing which, the Workman would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment. 5. For convenience in discussion, the parties are described as per their status before learned Labour Court. 6. Mr. Chand, learned counsel appearing for Management No.2 submits that the Workman engaged as a Peon on outsourcing basis through the Management No.1. She was not in the payroll of Management No.2. Thus, a direction for reinstatement of the Workman in service with full back wages so far as Management No.2 is concerned, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Management No.1 submits that as requested by Management No.2, Management No.1 supplied manpower in different category. Accordingly, the Management No.1 provided the services of the Workman to work as a Peon with the Management No.2. Before filing of the application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, Management No.1 made an offer to the Workman for her re-engagement under it, but she refused to accept such offer expressing her desire to be engaged under Management No.2 at Bhubaneswar. Though the same was brought to the notice of learned Labour Court but it was not given any weightage. Thus, the impugned award under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law as she refused the offer made by the Management No.1. He further submits that full back wages have already been paid to the Workman in terms of the impugned award. W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017 Page 3 of 6 When the Workman herself is not interested to join the Management No.1 and refused to accept the offer of the Management No.1 for engagement, she is not entitled to reinstatement. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Workman submits that though on pen and paper, the Workman was engaged on outsourcing basis by Management No.1, but she was working under the instructions of the Management No.2. At different points of time, the Management No.2 used to issue different instructions and the Workman was sincerely carrying out the same. Thus, for all necessary purposes, the Workman was engaged with the Management No.2. In the evidence, the Management No.2 also admitted to have engaged the Workman. As such, the offer of Management No.1 for reinstatement was not acceptable to the Workman. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award and no inference with it is warranted. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length; perused the materials on record including the impugned award, the relevant exhibits as well as the deposition placed before us by learned counsel for the parties. 10. From the discussions made by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it is clear that the Workman was engaged with Management No.2 on outsourcing basis through the Management No.1. The Workman was never in the payroll of the Management No.2. She was being paid her dues/wages through Management No.1. Although, learned Labour Court clearly observed that the Workman was engaged through the Management No.1 with W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017 Page 4 of 6 Management No.2, but observing that the Workman was continuously performing her duty under the Management No.2 from 8th October, 2014 to 29th June, 2015, directed both Management Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the Workman with full back wages. There is no doubt that the Workman was never in the payroll of the Management No.2. Thus, question of reinstatement with Management No.2 does not arise at all. 11. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Management No.1 that after disengagement of the Workman, being not required by the Management No.2, she was offered engagement by the Management No.1 vide letter No. 2276/JSS dated 30th June, 2015 and subsequently vide letter No. 3600/JSS dated 9th December, 2015 (Ext.G) requesting the Workman to attend the office of Management No.1 to receive engagement letter for joining in another Organization. Both the letters were issued much prior to the filing of application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. But she refused to accept the offer expressing her desire to be engaged with Management No.2. 11.1. On perusal of copy of Ext.‘G’ filed by the Workman (along with Memo dated 28the February, 2025), it is apparent that the Workman was offered engagement by Management No.1, the outsourcing agency which provided manpower to Management No.2 including the Workman, with any other Organization, as the Management No.2 did not require the services of the Workman. But she avoided accepting the offer. This material aspect was not taken into consideration while adjudicating the application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Only because the Workman has W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017 Page 5 of 6 performed duty as a Peon with Management No.2 being engaged through Management No.1 and continued there till her disengagement, this does not ipso facto entitle her to be reinstated with Management No.2. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds that the direction of the Labour Court to the extent, reinstatement of the Workman with Management No.2, does not arise at all. Thus, the impugned award to that extent is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 21st Day of July, 2025//Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 30-Jul-2025 19:52:19 W.P.(C). No.3330 of 2017 Page 6 of 6