Management of M/s Ganapati Balaji Spining Mill, Subarnapur ….. State of Odisha and others v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7854 of 2017 Management of M/s Ganapati Balaji Spining Mill, Subarnapur ….. State of Odisha and others Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. M.M. Pattnaik, Adv. Opposite Parties State Counsel CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 20.02.2024 Order No. 05. 2. 3. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.81 of 2015 under Annexure-1, by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has observed that the termination of the workman by petitioner-management by way of refusal of employment with effect from 04.10.2013 was illegal and unjustified and, therefore, directed the management to reinstate the workman in his former post and pay the workman all his back wages and other pecuniary benefits, as deemed fit and proper under law within three months from the date of notification of the award, failing which the management shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
Legal Reasoning
4. Mr. M.M. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management contended that though initially there was three shifts, but now it is only one shift, i.e., from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. Therefore, it is not possible on the part of the management to give allotment to the workman in compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Page 1 of 5 on perusing the record, it appears that the workman-opposite party no.2 is a high skilled textile worker and has served under the first party management continuously from 2010 to 2013. Before that, he was a worker under Sonepur Spinning Mill Limited, an unit of IDCOL, which is a Govt. of Orissa undertaking, from 1984 to 2007. His appointment under the management was based on his skill without any written appointment order, but he was paid less than the notified wages of the Orissa Government. The Spinning Mill of the management was closed for two months due to disconnection of electricity and after the mill started functioning later, the management allowed some workers to join in duty but did not allow the workman-opposite party no.2 and he was substituted by another workman. Being aggrieved, workman-opposite party no.2 took the shelter before the D.L.O., Subarnpur and after the conciliation proceeding failed, approached the Labour Court claiming that refusal of his employment by the management is illegal and unjustified and on that basis industrial dispute was raised and the conciliation having failed, the matter was referred to Government and by order dated 10.12.2015 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reference was made to the following effect:- “Whether the action of the management of M/s Ganapati Balaji Spinning Mill in terminating the services of Sri Choudhuri Nag, Machine Operator by way of refusal of employment with effect from 04.10.2013 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Nag is entitled?” 6. On the basis of the above reference made by the State Government, the management filed written statement denying the fact that workman-opposite party no.2 as a high skilled textile worker and was in service continuously from 2010 to 2013. It is Page 2 of 5 further contended therein that the workers were duly paid their dues as per prescribed minimum wages and in fact after restarting of the mill after being shut for a period, the workman-opposite party no.2 with others voluntarily choose not to work and remained unauthorizedly absent. Therefore, to run the factory in such situation, the management arranged other workers and the work could run for one shift only, but the workman-opposite party no.2 refused to join in spite of request of the management made at different times and the demand of the workman-opposite party no.2 was that he will only be engaged in night shift. As the workman- opposite party no.2 remained in unauthorized absence for a pretty long period, he was substituted, the management having no other alternative. Thereby, the workman-opposite party no.2 is not entitled to get any relief. 7. In response to the above written statement filed by the management, the workman-opposite party no.2 also filed his reply stating therein that he was working as a sider in Ring Frame department, which requires high skill and in that capacity he has 15 years of long experience. Thereby, the management has no genuine record to prove his case and that none of the workers, equally placed was supplied with any appointment order. It is further averred that the workman never remained in unauthorized absence but due to adoption of peak and choose method by the management, his case was not considered, for which he was denied with his claim. Therefore, the willful conduct of the management in disengaging him was illegal and unjustified. 8. Taking into consideration the above aspects, the Labour Court framed issues such as: (i) “Whether the action of the management of M/s Ganapati Balajee Spinning Mill in terminating the services of Page 3 of 5 Sri Choudhury Nag, Machine Operator, by way of refusal of employment with effect from 04.10.2013 is legal and/or justified?” and (ii) If not what relief Sri Nag is entitled? 9. Before the learned Labour Court in order to prove their respective causes, reliance was placed on oral and documentary evidence and after due adjudication, the Labour Court came to conclusion by holding that there is no dispute in the fact that the workman-opposite party no.2 worked under the management from January 2010 to October, 2013 without any break period and there is no clear averment whether the workman was engaged as a part timer or on contractual basis for a limited period. It is also not put forth whether the management had other units or not. Stand taken by the management is that the workman was never retrenched from service, but all the workmen could not be provided with any service for nearly three months due to closure of unit. It is held that retrenchment of the workman is always dependent upon some act on the part of the employer. The factory was closed down for non- supply of electricity and nearly after three months when it started functioning again, the workman approached to work, the management did not agree to allow him to join and the workman expressed his desire only to join to work in the night shift, but nothing has been placed on record to establish the same. 10. The Labour Court has come to a definite conclusion that the termination of the service of the workman is not caused by the workman himself but by his employer. It was also not a case that the presence of the workman would be against the interest of security of the management. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis it has been held by the Labour Court that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman by way of refusal of Page 4 of 5 employment was illegal and unjustified. In view of the reasons assigned for reaching the aforesaid conclusions by the Labour Court by taking into consideration the evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined to differ with the same. As such, in absence of any material before this Court to take a different view, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the award dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.81 of 2015 under Annexure-1 is well justified and does not warrant interference of this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner-management is directed to comply with the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.81 of 2015, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 21-Feb-2024 11:43:47 Page 5 of 5