The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24120 of 2023 The Dean & Principal, Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Education and Research (VIMSAR), Burla, Sambalpur ….. Petitioner Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, A.G.A. -versus- Sri Narayan Bag ….. Opp. Party Mr. Manas Pati, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 06.08.2025 Order No. 04. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner-Management in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated 20th April, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 (arising out of I.D. Case No. 15 of 2010) filed by the Opposite Party-Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 3. Mr. Sabita Ranjan Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that pursuant to the award dated 28th September, 2016 passed in I.D. Case No. 15 of 2010, the Opposite Party filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 2022. In the said application filed in Form-T- 3, the Opposite Party claimed arrear wages along with the interest and retrenchment compensation as well as litigation expenses from Page 1 of 7 the Petitioner. Taking note of the direction made in the award, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed the impugned order under Annexure-1. It is his submission that the term of reference in I.D. Case No. 15 of 2010 was as under:- “Whether the termination of service of Sri Narayan the Bag, Ex-Gate Keeper Principal, Veer Surendra Sai Medical College, Burla, Sambalpur w.e.f. 01.06.2007 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?” (DLR) Workman by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur answered the reference vide award dated 28th September, 2016 (Annexure-4) as under:- “The reference is answered on contest against the first party management but without cost. The action of the management in disengaging the workman Sri Narayan Bag from service with effect from 01.06.2007 is held to be illegal and unjustified. The first party management is directed to pay the arrear wages and retrenchment benefit to the workman within 3 months from the date of this order. The first party management is directed to reinstate the workman in service and to provide him his arrear wages as deem fit and proper and retrenchment compensation within 3 months from the date of award.” 4. As the Management, namely, Principal, VSS Medical College, Burla did not grant the monetary benefits in terms of the award under Annexure-4, an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act was filed by the Workman-Opposite Party. While adjudicating the petition, learned Labour Court held as under:- “5.5 In absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Court is to hold that the Applicant had worked with the O.P. for the entire period from 01.05.1999 till dt.- 31.05.2007 with a period of 240 days per year. Page 2 of 7 Moreover, from Ext. I it appears that the Applicant was getting Rs. 40/-per day towards his wages for his duty with the O.P. As such, he will be entitled to Rs. 40/- X 240 days per year for eight years and one month (from dt.-01.05.1999 to dt.-31.05.2007). This amount will come to (40 X 240 X 8) plus (40 X 20), which will be equal to (Rs.76, 800/- plus Rs. 800/-) Rs. 77,600/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred only). This is the arrear back wages to be received by the Applicant from the O.P. 5.6 So far as the retrenchment compensation is concerned, as per Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947, the same is equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or part thereof in excess of six months. Now, the same of the Applicant will be Rs. 40/-X 15 X 8 (completed year of continuous service), which will be equal to Rs. 4,800/-. As such, the Applicant will be entitled to the aforesaid two amount and not more than that. The claim of the Applicant towards litigation expenses for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be ordered by this Court, as there is no such power to order litigation expenses originating from Sec. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. 5.7 The O.P. has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Physical Research Laboratory v. Sharma, dt. 08.04.1997 and has contended that the O.P. is not an industry. I have carefully gone through the said judgment, but the present O.P. is a Medical College unlike the Physical Research Laboratory. The facts of the instant Case is different from the Case relied upon by the O.P.. Moreover, this issue has already been decided this Court while passing award in I.D. Case No. 15 of 2010. Hence, it is ordered as follows: O R D E R The Misc. Case of the Applicant is allowed on contest Page 3 of 7 against the O.P., but in the circumstances without any cost. The Applicant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.77, 600/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred only) towards arrear back wages and Rs. 48,00/- (Rupees Four thousand eight hundred only) towards retrenchment compensation, total Rs. 82,400/- (Rupees Eighty two thousand four hundred only) from the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay the Applicant above sum of rupees towards his dues within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum.” in 5. Accordingly, it was directed that the Workman is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.77,600/- (Rupees Seventy-seven thousand Six hundred only) towards arrear back wages and Rs.4,800/- (Rupees Four thousand Eight hundred only) towards retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Petitioner- Management to pay a total sum of Rs. 82,400/- (Rupees Eighty-two thousand Four hundred only) towards his dues within three months from the date of the order failing which it would carry a simple interest @ 10% per annum. 6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the Opposite Party claimed arrear wages for the period from 1st May, 1999 to 31st May, 2007 as he was retrenched with effect from 1st June, 2007. He also claimed retrenchment compensation. But in the meantime, the Petitioner has received a sum of Rs.18,380/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand Three hundred Eighty only) in compliance to the order dated 19th March, 2009 (Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2007 filed by the Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming arrear wages from 6th July, 2005 to 30th May, 2007. The amount of Rs.18,380/- Page 4 of 7 (Rupees Eighteen thousand Three hundred Eighty only) was paid vide demand draft dated 21st November, 2011 (Annexure-3). Further, the Opposite Party-Workman was paid a sum of Rs.14,705/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Seven hundred five only) towards arrear wages for the period from 1st August, 2004 to 5th July, 2005. The said amount was paid pursuant to the order dated 16th September, 2016 (Annexre-5) in I.D. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2014 filed by the Workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The said amount was paid the Opposite Party–Workman vide demand draft dated 6th April, 2017 (Annexure-6). 7. Although, aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of learned Labour Court, Sambalpur, but without taking note of the same the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed. Pursuant to order passed under Annexre-2 in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2007 and order under Annexure-5 in I.D. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2014 the Opposite Party has already received a total sum of (Rs.18,380/- + Rs.14,705/-) = Rs.33,085/- (Rupees Thirty-three thousand Eighty-five only) out of Rs.82,400/- (Rupees Eighty-two thousand Four hundred only). Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-1 should be modified to the aforesaid extent. 8. Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for the Opposite Party- Workman submits that pursuant to the previous applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the Workman had already received a sum of Rs.33,085/- (Rupees Thirty-three thousand Eighty-five only) towards arrear wages which covers a part of the arrear wages claimed in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022. 9. In view of such submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party is Page 5 of 7 entitled to receive rest of the amount to the tune of Rs.49,315/- (Rupees Forty-nine thousand Three hundred Fifteen only) along with 10% simple interest per annum till the date of payment from the Petitioner-Management in terms of the impugned order under Annexure-1. 10. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, however, submits that the Opposite Party-Workman is not entitled to interest as directed in impugned order under Annexure-1. It is his submission that for the period of pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the Petitioner-Management is not liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum as directed by the Labour Court. 11. The contention of Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate is baseless, in view of the fact that the Workman had been paid a sum of Rs.33,085/- (Rupees Thirty-three thousand Eighty-five only) in terms of the award passed in I.D. Case No.15 of 2010, but the rest amount out of Rs.82,400/- (Rupees Eighty-two thousand Four hundred only), i.e., Rs.49, 315/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand Three hundred and Fifteen only), though not disputed, was not paid by the Petitioner-Management. Thus, the Workman is entitled to the interest as directed by learned Labour Court, Sambalpur on Rs.49,315/-. (Rupees Forty-nine thousand Three hundred and Fifteen only). No interim order is also operating in this case. 12. Thus, the aforesaid amount along with the interest shall be paid to the Workman within a period of three months hence, failing which, it shall carry an additional interest of Rs.6% per annum. Page 6 of 7 13. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order under Annexure-1, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Aug-2025 14:13:08 Page 7 of 7