Sibaram Patra Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 16877 of 2022 Sibaram Patra Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. G.S. Das, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Nanda, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 15.02.2024 Order No. 06. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties. 3. The petitioner, claiming to be a workman, has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No.6 of 2019 under Annexure-1, by which the claim of the workman for reinstating him in service with full back wages, along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits of service, has been denied. 4. The factual matrix, revealed from the statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act, is that he was engaged by the management as Amin on temporary/ad hoc basis w.e.f. 01.02.2005 and while he was working as such, the management illegally terminated his service w.e.f. 30.11.2018, by way of refusal of employment. Consequently, he filed an application/representation before the management on 06.08.2019 to reconsider his case for reinstatement, but the same was not acceded to. As a result, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 27.08.2019 before the District Labour Officer, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi with regard to his illegal termination from his service by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 30.11.2018. Pursuant to such application, notice was issued by the Page 1 of 6 District Labour Officer, Gajapati fixing the date 30.09.2019 for conciliation. In response to the said notice, the Asst. Engineer Minor Irrigation attended the conciliation as the representative of the management and denied all the facts and also did not recognize the workman, who allegedly had been working under the management for a period of more than 14 years. Apparently the workman submitted the statement of claim before the Labour Court without waiting for report of failure of conciliation from the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government, invoking the provision of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contending that the management is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (J) of the I.D. Act and the dispute arising out of termination of service by way of refusal of employment, an application was filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, which has been registered as I.D. Case No. 5 of 2019. The petition under Section 2-A(2) was filed with a sole prayer to decide the matter “whether the termination of service of Sri Sibaram Patra, Amin, temporary/Ad hoc basis, by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 30.11.2018 by the management of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi is legal and/or justified? If not what relief Sri Patra is entitled to.” To substantiate such relief, it was claimed by the workman that the management paid the salary/wages of the workman till February, 2018 and thereafter did not pay the wages and finally, the management terminated the service of the workman w.e.f. 30.11.2018. The workman contended that after he had rendered more than 14 years of service, illegally his service was terminated by the management, for which the workman suffered a lot to get another job. The workman relied upon eight documents, which is indicated at page-33 and 34 of the brief as list of documents filed on behalf of the workman. The workman examined two witnesses, which is at page-35 of the brief, i.e., the list of witness given by the workman. Page 2 of 6 5. As it appears, in response to the claim statement, written statement was filed by the management refuting the contention raised by the workman. It was contended that an application was filed by the workman before the management on 06.08.2019 to reconsider his case, but he had neither been engaged nor appointed as an Amin by the management and, therefore, his application was not considered. More so, in absence of any material indicating engagement of the workman as Amin either on temporary or on ad hoc basis and merely filing a representation by him for reconsideration of his case, cannot enure to any benefit of the workman to get reemployment, the contention raised that the workman has continued for more than 14 years of service, is absolutely without any basis and no material has also been produced along with the claim statement to substantiate the same. In paragraph- 12 of the written statement the management has specifically stated that “the workman never been engaged or appointed by the management and, therefore, question of termination/retrenchment or serving of any type of notice prior to the termination of the workman or payment of compensation does not arise”. 6. Even though rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the workman, but nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the workman has completed more than 14 years of service and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-employed in service. The Labour Court, on consideration of the claim statement and written statement filed by the respective parties, along with the documents adduced, has specifically observed that the management has denied the engagement of workman as Amin either on temporary or ad hoc basis in the Minor Irrigation Division, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi and further denied the refusal of employment of workman on any day, more particularly the management-1st party no.2 specifically stated that he has no power to engage or appoint any workman in the cadre of Amin and accordingly the Labour Court framed as many as three issues to the following effect:- “(i) Whether the 2nd party workman was working under Page 3 of 6 the 1st party Management for more than 14 years? (ii) Whether the termination of 2nd party workman by way of refusal of employment from his service is legal and/or justified? (iii) Whether 2nd party workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential financial benefits? 7. While answering the above issues, the Labour Court has come to a definite conclusion that pursuant to Ext-1, it was found that the workman was engaged or deputed as Amin for a certain period, whereas the management denied the workman as their employee and the management 1st party no.2 has stated that he has no power to appoint anybody as Amin and has not appointed the workman as Amin. On the other hand, from the documents, which have been filed by the workman, it was found that he was engaged as a casual worker. Engagement of such casual worker only refers to those workers, who do not earn regular wages and do not have regular employment throughout the year. They work for few months or days and earn wages for the work done. Casual workers are not hired by employers on a regular basis. It has been held by the learned Labour Court that to substantiate the claim made by the workman that he has was working for more than 14 years continuously, no materials was produced before the Labour Court for consideration. Rather, it is otherwise, as have been mentioned above. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the representation filed by the workman before the Executive Engineer, M.I. Division, Gajapati requesting for engagement in the Amin post and conversion of work charged posts, which is at page-20 of the writ petition and the Asst. Engineer, M.I. Division, Paralakhemundi, vide letter dated 07.12.2017 has submitted the representation to the Executive Engineer, M.I. Division for favour of kind consideration and necessary action. 9. Much emphasis has been laid on the aforesaid forwarding letter Page 4 of 6 dated 07.12.2017 of the Asst. Engineer, M.I. Division, Paralakhemundi to substantiate the fact that the workman has rendered more than 14 years of service. But in the said letter nothing has been indicated. In absence of any material indicating that he has rendered more than 14 years continuity of service and any proof thereof, the claim for reinstatement or regularization of service does not arise. On the other hand, the petitioner has deposed before the Labour Court in the cross examination to the following effect: “I have not been issued any appointment letter from the management. I was getting work from Executive Engineer and Asst. Engineer to work for demarcation, canal work, pani panchayat work.” 10. The admission made by the workman in the cross examination that the workman was not issued any appointment letter from the management and he was getting work from the Executive Engineer and Asst. Engineer to work for demarcation, canal work and pani panchayat work. In absence of any materials before this Court that the petitioner was engaged by the management and allowed to discharge the responsibility for more than 14 years, this Court is not able to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, the Labour Court, Jeypore in its award dated 17.01.2022, relying upon the documents, has come to a definite finding that the workman has failed to produce any document which will show whether there is any agreement between him and his employer and further under which Government notification he was engaged or got appointment and that which notification authorized the Executive Engineer or Asst. Engineer to appoint the workman as an Amin to the said Division and ultimately the Labour Court refused to grant the relief, as claimed by the petitioner-workman and consequently held that the workman is not entitled to get any relief. 11. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the award dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Page 5 of 6 learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No.6 of 2019 under Annexure-1 so as to warrant interference with the same. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. (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: 20-Feb-2024 16:45:13 Page 6 of 6