Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K W.P.(C) No. 21274 OF 2023 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Sunil Kumar Tanti : Petitioner -Versus- M/s. Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd., Bhubaneswar & Anr. : Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. K. Sahoo, Adv. Mr.A. Satapathy, Adv. For O.Ps. : Mr. S. Ghosh, AGA J U D G M E N T CORAM : JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Date of Hearing & Judgment : 04.08.2023 1. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:- <It is therefore most fervently prayed that the Hon9ble court may be pleased to admit he application and issue show cause to the opp. parties and after hearing quash the part of order of the to Rs.7,08,599/- at annexure-7 and direct the opp. party No.1 to pay the entire amount claimed under the head of wages, bonus and leave salary claimed by the petitioner in the court below. learned court below limiting claim Page 1 of 8 // 2 // And any other writ and/or orders may be passed as may deem fit and proper for fare disposal of the case. And for which act the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.= 2. Undisputedly, the Petitioner-Workman and the Management entered into an industrial adjudication vide I.D. Case No.60 of 1990 involving final award dated 17.02.1999 directing the Management for reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages after observing there was illegal termination of services of the Petitioner herein with effect from 24.10.86. 3. Taking this Court to Annexure-2, it has been established that
Legal Reasoning
the award being challenged by the Management in this Court in disposal of O.J.C No.7286 of 1999, this Court dismissed the attempt of the Management involving the above award. It is since no step has taken by the Management for reinstatement of the Petitioner and releasing the back wages and in the meantime the Petitioner having already attended the age of superannuation, the Petitioner-workman got compelled in bringing an application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 being registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.63 of 2021. 4. Based on service of notice in I.D. Misc. Case No.63 of 2021 on the Management, the Management brought objection vide Annexure-4 for consideration of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // The matter has been finally adjudicated and decided vide Annexure-7 bringing in an assessment on the entitlement of the Petitioner in paragraph-6 therein directing the Management to pay a sum of Rs.7,08,599/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Nine) only (i.e. Rs.55,781/- towards back wages + Rs.7,90,983/- towards wages and there shall be adjustment of Rs.1,38,165/- towards compliance of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act entitlement. Further also observing in the event the amount so computed is not released within two months of the order, the Workman-Applicant was to be entitled interest @ 6% per annum.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner in challenge of the workman to Annexure-7 on the of quantum aspect only, taking this Court to the plea of the workman in the statement of claim at Annexure-3 and reading together with the show cause of the Management vide Annexure-4 contended that for the materials available with the workman, once the workman brought out a calculation sheet on the arrear wages and 50% back wages following the industrial adjudication in I.D. Case No.60 of 1990 and the Management did not dispute to the same seriously, the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar was no alternate than to allow the statement of the claim as a whole. It is thus taking this Court to the stand of the Management in its objection at Annexure-4, the claim Page 3 of 8 // 4 // of the Petitioner-workman in the statement of the claim at Annexure-3 and reading through the observation of the Labour Court involved herein, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was no other material available with the Labour Court to disagree on the claim of the Petitioner. 6. This matter is heard at the admission stage to consider if the case deserve for admission or not. This Court finds, admittedly there has been already an industrial adjudication on the following reference:- <Whether the action of the management of M/s. FACOR Ltd., Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sunil Kumar Tanti with effect from 24.10.86 is legal and/or justified and if not, to what relief is Sri Tanti entitled?= The industrial adjudication ended with the following order:- <9. Hence ordered: That the action of the management of M/s. FACTOR Ltd., Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Sunil Kumar Tanti with effect from 24.10.86 is not legal and justified. The workman Sri Tanti is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, however with 50 percent back wages. The reference is thus answered accordingly.= It be stated here that above award was passed on 17.02.1999, Petitioner-workman submitted his joining report on 28.08.1999. In the meantime this award got challenged in O.J.C. No.7286 of 1999, Page 4 of 8 // 5 // which got dismissed on 11.12.2019 resulting Petitioner bringing in the 33-C (2) proceeding. In the meantime Petitioner-workman attended the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. 7. It is at this stage this Court observes, the workman brought a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act claiming therein the 50% arrear wages up to the date of award loaded with interest for unpaid period and also claimed full wages and interest until he attended the age of superannuation. Giving a calculation sheet at internal page-3 of page-21 of the brief claiming 50% arrear to be Rs.1,69,066.5/-, towards full wages claimed the arrear on wages to be Rs.29,62,125/- also therein claimed on the head of bonus and leave salary making it total to Rs.34,40,080/-. 8. Based on the service of notice of a proceeding under Section 33-C(2), it appears, the Management filed its response at Annexure-4 giving clear position on the entitlement of the Petitioner and it is based on the pleadings of the parties. There has been also evidence led by both sides resulting the final outcome vide Annexure-7 keeping in view the statement of claim the response of the management and the submission of the learned counsel and the extent of evidence brought by both the parties, this Court finds, the Labour Court has entered into threadbare Page 5 of 8 // 6 // discussion on the issue involved herein and has reached the following observations:- the applicant
Decision
<Similarly, the applicant is also entitled to full wages for the period from 18.2.1999 to March, 2021 and to that effect he has also filed a calculation sheet, but the same is not based on any documentary evidence. The material available on the record implies that the applicant was engaged under the OP as a 8Watchman9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels it proper to hold that the applicant is coming under the purview of an 8unskilled worker9. So, the applicant is entitled to his wages as per minimum wages fixed by the Govt. from time to time prescribed for the unskilled workers. As per the Minimum wages Act, the applicant is not entitled to any wages for is Sundays. Accordingly, entitled to Rs.7,90,983/- [Rs.27,880/- i.e., Rs.40 per day to i.e., 30.04.2001 Rs.42.50/- from 1.5.2001 to 31.12.2001 (208 days); Rs.15,850/- i.e., Rs.50/- per day from (317 days); to 31.12.2003 01.01.2002 Rs.16,642/- i.e., Rs.52.50 paise per day from to 31.12.2005 01.01.2004 (317 days); i.e., Rs.55/- per day from Rs.23,155/- (421 days); to 30.04.2007 01.01.2006 from Rs.46,200/- i.e., Rs70/- per day 1.5.2007 days); i.e., Rs.90/- per day from Rs.60,300/- 1.6.2009 days); 12.07.2011 Rs.36,167/- i.e., Rs.92.50 paise per day from (391 days); to 8.10.2012 13.07.2011 Rs.95,100/- i.e., Rs.150/- per day from 9.10.2012 days); 8.10.2014 Rs.37,515/- i.e., Rs.152.50 paise per day from 9.10.2014 to 23.07.2015 (246 days); Rs.42,800/- i.e., Rs.200/- per day from (214 days); to 31.03.2016 24.07.2015 from 18.02.1999 (697 days); Rs.8,840/- 31.05.2009 (660 (634 (670 to to to Page 6 of 8 // 7 // Rs.65,682/- i.e., Rs.207.20 paise per day from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 (317 days); Rs.67,680/- i.e., Rs.213.50 paise per day from 1.4.2017 to 31.03.2018 (317 days); Rs.40,320/- i.e., Rs.224.30 paise per day from 1.4.2018 to 29.10.2018 (180 days); Rs.36,400/- i.e., Rs.280/- per day for the period from 30.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 (130 days); Rs.44,663/- i.e., Rs.286.30 paise per day from 1.4.2019 to 30.09.2019 (156 days); Rs.46,488/- i.e., Rs.298/- per day from (156 days); to 31.03.2020 01.10.2019 Rs.47,268/- i.e. Rs.303.40 paise per day from 01.04.2020 to 30.09.2020 (156 days) and Rs.32,033/- per day from 01.10.2020 to 31.01.2021 (104 days)] as per minimum wages prescribed for 8unskilled worker9.= 9. Taking into consideration the grounds in the Writ Petition and the submissions made herein this Court finds, there has been calculation aspect undertaken by the Labour Court purely based on materials available on record. Besides there is clear availability of reasoning of the Labour Court holding the workman unable to bring forth establishing his calculation aspect in terms of undisputed material available on record. It is here observed that Petitioner got the full opportunity to substantiate his claim in the 33-C (2) proceeding and there is consideration made definitely to the extent the workman proved. 10. It is in the circumstance this Court finds, a calculation aspects having been undertaken in exercise of power under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act decided purely based on material available Page 7 of 8 // 8 // on record cannot be found to be faulted. No responsibility even can be put on the head of the Labour Court. The claim of the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner had given a statement and merely because there is no serious objection to it the Labour Court remain bound by the same has no substance nor has any support of law. Petitioner in spite of all opportunity could not proof beyond the calculation arrived at. 11. In the process of consideration this Court finds, there has been also taking into account some decisions by the Labour Court since supports the observation and finding of the Labour Court, this Court finds, there is no lacuna or mistaken consideration involving a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act required to be interfered with such order. This Court therefore declines to entertain the Writ Petition, which is hereby dismissed. No cost. (M.S.Sahoo) Judge (Biswanath Rath) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 4th August, 2023// Swarna Prava Dash, Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Aug-2023 13:17:34 Page 8 of 8