The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17570 of 2022 (Through Hybrid Mode) M/s. Orien Engineers (P) Ltd., Sundargarh …. Petitioner -versus- Gagan Bihari Satpathy …. Opposite Party Learned advocates appeared in the case: For petitioner : Mr. Rashmi Narayan Patnaik, Advocate For opposite party
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Somanath Mishra, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment : 11th September, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. The writ petition is up for hearing. Initially Mr. Mishra, learned advocate virtually appearing on behalf of opposite party (workman) had prayed for adjournment, opposed by Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner (management). Page 1 of 6 The opposition was on submission that opposite party was pressing for execution and seeking adjournment here. 2. We see that by our order dated 13th March, 2024 we had required production of the record in the ID Case no.01/2021 (2-A) dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal on impugned award dated 8th April, 2024. This is because we noticed then and have again seen, impugned award directed, inter alia, reinstatement on two findings. Firstly, the Tribunal disbelieved case of management that opposite party (workman) had abandoned his job by refusal to do other work, in a situation where running of the factory was disrupted by directions for lockdown due to the pandemic. Second reason given was, the workman had specifically alleged termination of his service from 18th April, 2020 but there was no specific denial in the written statement. 3. We have perused the claim petition made under section 2- A(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is annexure-1 to the petition while the written statement is annexure-2. It is clear from the claim petition, opposite party (workman) had engaged learned advocate. Identification made by the learned advocate appears in the verification page of the petition. The written statement styled as the ‘written submission’ was filed by petitioner (management) through WP(C) no. 17570 of 2022 Page 2 of 6 the Chair Person-cum-Managing Director. It is just that, statements made as submissions in answer to the claim petition. It does not deal with any specific paragraph in the claim petition, let alone paragraph- 5 in it, wherein opposite party (workman) had alleged that on 18th April, 2020 he was not allowed to perform his duties. The record has been made available and we proceed with the hearing. 4. It appears from impugned award three issues were framed. It is necessary for us to reproduce below paragraph-5 from the claim petition and the issues. “Petition (5). That, on 18-04-2020, when the 2nd party went to join his duties, he was informed that due to Lockdown there is not much of work for him and he was not allowed to perform his duties. Issues I: Whether the application filed by the 2nd party- workman is maintainable? II: Whether the action of the 1st party-management of Orien Engineers (P) Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri Gagan Bihari Satpathy is legal and/or justified? III: And if not, what relief the 2nd party-workman is entitled to?” WP(C) no. 17570 of 2022 Page 3 of 6 5. Mr. Patnaik relies on exhibit-E tendered in the Tribunal. We see from list of documents admitted in evidence that exhibit-E is relevant pages of ‘in’ and ‘out’ register of the factory and marked on admission. He demonstrates from the register, opposite party (workman) was admitted into the factory after 18th April, 2020, on 22nd April, 2020, 4th, 5th, 18th, 19th and 20th May, 2020. 6. We find exhibit-E was dealt with in impugned award. We extract the passage therefrom and reproduce it below. “... ... ... Through Ext.E series the 1st party- management even though tried to make out a case that the 2nd party-workman was attending work even after 18th April, 2020 but mere entering factory premises can no stretch of imagination bring a presumption automatically that the workman was allowed to work. A cursory look at Ext.E series, relevant portion of In-Out register would go to show that on 22nd April 2020, 4th/5th/18th/19th and 20th May 2020 he had been to the factory, but he remained therein for few hours and returned. This is contrary to the evidence of M.W.1 Bhaskar Chandra Sethi who has stated in his evidence that the 2nd party-workman was employed by the management to work from 8 A.M to 5 PM with lunch break of one hour i.e, 12 P.M to 1 P.M. If that is so, no explanation offered by the management WP(C) no. 17570 of 2022 Page 4 of 6 as to why the 2nd party workman returned home on those days much earlier than his schedule working hours. Ext. E series rather supports the claim of the 2nd party-workman that after his refusal from employment, he run from pillar to post to take him back in work but all in vain. Moreover, no such plea has been taken by 1st party-management in their written statement and therefore, any amount of evidence in that respect is quite unacceptable.” 7. Going back to the claim petition, we reproduce below (emphasis supplied) paragraph-6 therefrom. “(6) That, the 2nd Party Workman ran from pillar to post and approached his superior officers/authorities but in vain. Neither the 2nd Party Workman was allowed to resume his duties nor he was informed of the reason of such illegal refusal of employment.” 8. The Tribunal is the fact finding forum. Petitioner (management) has approached us for judicial review over impugned award. Second reason given by the Tribunal is assertion of termination from service was not specifically denied by the management in its written submission (statement). Even if this is not strictly held against the management, the Tribunal on having analyzed WP(C) no. 17570 of 2022 Page 5 of 6 the evidence, came to conclusion that on intermittent days after termination of service, the workman visited the factory. The visits were explained by the workman in paragraph-6 of his petition, to say that he ran from pillar to post and approached his superior officers/authorities but in vain. We, not being an appellate authority, cannot re-appreciate this evidence. 9. We further find from impugned award, otherwise the question of maintainability of the claim petition and all contentions were dealt with. We have no reason to interfere. Mr. Patnaik submits, opposite party (workman) has already achieved his superannuation with effect from 7th July, 2024. 10.
Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. 1. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Prasant Date: 12-Sep-2024 12:09:27 WP(C) no. 17570 of 2022 Page 6 of 6