The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 10:46:55 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20481 of 2018 Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner Mr. Braja Kishor Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Abhina Charan Sahu and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Kamala Kanta Nayak, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.09.2023 4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Order dated 24th March, 2018 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in Industrial Misc. Case No.45 of 1997 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby approval of termination of Opposite Party No.1-Workman under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been refused. 3. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management submits that alleging misconduct on the part of Opposite Party No.1-Workman, Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated. Following due procedure of law, a decision was taken to terminate services of Opposite Party No.1-Workman. As the Opposite Party No.1-Workman was not available in the headquarter and was staying in his native place, the termination letter was sent to him by post. Along with the same, one month salary was also sent to the Workman by money order. As the Opposite Party No.1 was a ‘concerned Workman’ and an Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 10:46:55 // 2 // industrial dispute is pending, the Petitioner-Management filed an application seeking approval of termination of Opposite Party No.1. Although learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair and proper, but holding that requirement of Section 33 (2)(b) of the ID Act was not complied with by giving one month salary to Opposite Party No.1-Workman, it refused to approve the termination. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 3.1 Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management submits that along with the termination letter, one month salary of the Opposite Party No.1-Workman was sent to him in his home address by money order. In support of its case, the Management has exhibited Exts.12, 13 and 14 to show that one month salary was in fact sent to the Opposite Party No.1- Workman and it returned due to non-availability of the Workman at his home. Although learned Tribunal referred to those documents in its order but failed to discuss the same. On an overall appraisal of materials on record, learned Tribunal came to hold that the enquiry was fair and proper. But learned Tribunal refused to approve such termination on the ground of non-payment of one month salary to the Workman, which is a condition precedent to seek for approval of termination under Section 33 (2)(b) of the ID Act. It is his submission that non- consideration of the materials on record has vitiated the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-2 and remit the matter to learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law discussing the matter more particularly Exhibits with regarding Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 10:46:55 // 3 // sending of one month salary to Opposite Party No.1-Workman and its refund. 4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1- Workman, on the other hand, submits that learned Tribunal discussing the materials on record, came to the categorical conclusion that before seeking for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the Petitioner-Management failed to comply with the pre-condition of the said provision. Since on appreciation of materials, learned Tribunal has arrived at a categorical finding, disapproving termination of Opposite Party No.1, the same should not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution. He also refers to the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal in the impugned order under Annexure-2. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition being devoid of any merit should be dismissed. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-2, it appears that the Petitioner-Management has purportedly adduced evidence with regard to communication of the order of termination as well as one month salary to the Opposite Party No.1-Workman vide Exts.12, 13 and 14. It also appears that learned Tribunal has referred to those exhibits in the impugned order. But on a thorough scrutiny of the impugned order, it appears that learned Tribunal has not discussed about the said documents while arriving at a conclusion that there is no material on record to show that the pre-condition of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act was complied with. This Court could have called for the records from the learned Tribunal and examined the matter, but it would further delay the matter before this Court. Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 10:46:55 // 4 // 6. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the impugned order under Annexure-2 and remit the matter to learned Tribunal for adjudication of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act afresh on the materials available on record giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 6.1. Since the matter is of the year 1997, this Court directs learned Tribunal to adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties on the materials already available on record. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela on 20th November, 2023 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge s.s.satapathy Page 4 of 4