The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pune …… Petitioner -Versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared:
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Amit Kumar Maity, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 20.03.2025 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 30th December, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32 // 2 // Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.105 of 2016, whereby a direction has been issued to pay the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary for the months of December, 2015 to March, 2016 and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- ( in total Rs.3,14,000/-). It is also directed that if the amount, as above, is not paid within a period of two months, then the Workman will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum until payment is made. 3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management submits that the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 was working as State Head of Odisha and Jharkhand under the Petitioner-Management. During the period of probation, he could not achieve the target, for which his services were terminated. The Opposite Party No.2 is not a Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) in view of the nature of duty, he was discharging. The Opposite Party No.2 has not filed any document with regard to his salary as well as entitlement. Learned Labour Court without considering the case of the Management-Petitioner in its proper perspective, has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Maity, learned counsel submits that the Workman- Opposite Party No.2 was working as Marketing Professional and was visiting door to door to persuade the customers for purchase of three wheelers Auto Rickshaw, of which the Petitioner- W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32 // 3 // Management was the dealer. His gross salary was Rs.74,750/- per month. The Opposite Party No.2, before his termination, was not paid salary from December, 2015 till March, 2016. He also filed Ext.1, which disclosed his nature of duty. Considering the same, learned Labour Court exercising power under Section 33-C (2) of the Act passed the impugned order under Annexure- 1. Since the impugned order is a reasoned one, it needs no interference. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Opposite Party No.2- Workman was under employment of Petitioner-Management since 5th October, 2015. He had filed Ext.1, which disclosed his nature of duty and salary. From Ext.1, it appears that Opposite Party No.2 was drawing a salary of Rs.74,750/- per month. In Paragraph-4 of the impugned order under Annexure-1, learned Labour Court on scrutiny of records held that it is not in dispute that the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 was working from 5th October, 2015 till March, 2016. From the record, it also appears that the Opposite Party No.2 was not paid salary for the months from December, 2015 till his termination in March, 2016. 6. The Petitioner-Management though claimed that the Opposite Party No.2 was not a Workman, but did not produce any document before learned Labour Court in support of its case. Thus, considering the materials on record and the nature of job he (the Opposite Party No.2) was discharging, learned Labour W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32 // 4 // Court came to hold that the Opposite Party No.2 was a Workman. 7. Although the Opposite Party No.2-Workman has claimed a sum of Rs.3,91,365/- towards his unpaid wages and outstanding tour bills, but he could not produce any materials in support of his unpaid tour bills. Thus, learned Labour Court on scrutiny of records held that the Opposite Party No.2 is entitled to Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary for the period from December, 2015 to March, 2016. 8. Further, learned Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, objects to the same submitting that learned Labour Court being a creature of the statute (the Act), cannot grant such a relief, which is beyond the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act. From 9. learned Labour Commissioner, Odisha vide Letter No.4204 dated 2nd July, 2024 the record, it appears that has already issued certificate for realization of the amount, as directed by learned Labour Court. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-1 has attained its finality. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the objection raised by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner in respect of litigation expenses. 10. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-1. W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32 // 5 // 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 20th March, 2025/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 5 of 5