The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24524 of 2024 M/s. Tata Steel Limited (Sponge Iron), Keonjhar …. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case : For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Parties: Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel Opposite party no.3 (In person) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO AND J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates of hearing: 7th October, 2024 and 9th January, 2025 Date of judgment: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J.
Decision
1. The writ petition has been listed and called on for hearing at 2:00 P.M. as marked, since we had given priority as opposite party no.3 (workman) is appearing in person. State has filed counter and the writ petition is ready for hearing. Page 1 of 7 2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management). He submits, opposite party no.3 (workman) had filed claim petition registered as Misc. Case no.37 of 2023 under section 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In proceeding with the case his client perceived clear bias exhibited by opposite party no.2 (the Presiding Officer). Accordingly it applied for transfer of the case. By communication dated 18th September, 2024 the authority rejected his client’s representation dated 15th July, 2024, for transferring the proceeding. He points out from the communication, non-application of mind is apparent inasmuch as the claim petition was presented in year 2023. The communication relates the Misc. Case no.37 of 2023 as had been instituted in year 2009. He draws attention to section 33-B to submit, no reason was given in impugned communication. 3. There is no requirement for us to deal with second submission regarding requirement to give reasons provided for in section 33-B. This is because the Misc. Case is by claim petition for computing benefit of opposite party no.3. There is no dispute it was filed in year 2023. We have ascertained that the original dispute proceeding commenced in year 2009, culminating in award in favour of opposite party no.3. Mr. Mishra submits, there W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 was compliance. Opposite party no.3 had raised additional claim by the misc. case. On query from Court Mr. Mishra submits, the Presiding Officer is present incumbent and earlier officer had dealt with the dispute in answering the reference. His client’s grievance is against present incumbent on exhibited bias in dealing with the claim petition. 4. Text of impugned communication dated 18th September, 2024 made by the Deputy Secretary to Government addressed to petitioner, is reproduced below. “I am directed to invite a reference on the above cited subject and to say that after careful consideration Government have been pleased to reject your representation dated 15.07.2024 submitted by you before grievance cell of the Principal Secretary for transfer of Misc. Case No.37 of 2023 under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act 1947 of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur to the Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhubaneswar which has been instituted in the year 2009 and sent to Presiding Officer, Labour Court Sambalpur for adjudication with kind approval of the Govt.” (emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 5. Considering the communication mentions Misc. Case no.37 of 2023 said to be instituted in year 2009 and sent to the Labour Court for adjudication with kind approval of the Government, we had admitted the writ petition and required State to answer. In paragraph 11 of the counter State says, opposite party no.3 made application dated 5th August, 2024 with prayer not to transfer the misc. case. Mr. Mishra points out, annexure B1 was introduced as letter dated 13th August, 2024 written by Deputy Secretary to Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Copy of the letter was subsequently produced and it is hands up. According to him, the Presiding Officer was requested to send, inter alia, photocopy of main case record and reference since beginning, for better appreciation, obviously to deal with his client’s application for transfer. He reiterates, the main case stood disposed of on award made. There was compliance. The misc. case was subsequently filed in year 2023 carrying additional claim. Query made by the Government in respect of his client’s application for transfer, was not related to it. Thus, there is further demonstration that the appropriate Government did not apply its mind in dealing with his client’s application for transfer on reason of exhibition of bias by present Presiding Officer in the Labour Court. W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 6. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, he cannot improve on contents and disclosures made in the counter. 7. Opposite party no.3 appearing in person appears agitated. He submits, there should not be transfer as it will cause him hardship. This is but one of many ways in which the management is obstructing his legitimate claim. The Presiding Officer did not exhibit bias. This Court rule on the application for transfer, to reject it. 8. The power to transfer lies with the appropriate Government as provided in section 33-B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not for Court to decide on the application for transfer even though entire materials may be in the writ file. What we must see is whether there was application of mind by the appropriate Government, to reject the application as by impugned communication dated 18th September, 2024. 9. Description of the Misc. Case given in impugned communication, as originally filed in the year 2009 and referred to the Labour Court with approval of the Government gave prima facie indication of non-application of mind because the claim W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 petition under section 33-C(2) was filed by opposite party no.3 (workman) pursuant to the reference having been concluded by passing of award dated 16th November, 2012. Long after passing of the award the misc. case was filed and there is no dispute that present incumbent in office of Presiding Officer in the Labour Court is different from the person, who officiated as such and passed said award. 10. That there was confusion in mind of the appropriate Government is further apparent from query made by it on said letter dated 13th August, 2024. Further confirmation is reply by the Presiding Officer, in forwarding case particulars of the original reference. In the circumstances, we must and do interfere to set aside impugned communication. 11. The appropriate Government is directed to forthwith deal with petitioner’s transfer application regarding claim petition being Misc. Case no.37 of 2023 filed under section 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, much after award dated 16th November, 2012 disposing of the reference. For the purpose the appropriate Government may obtain assistance from both petitioner and opposite party no.3 (workman) at a hearing, if necessary. Reference to the Presiding Officer, against whom there W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 is allegation of bias will not be appropriate. Furthermore, the appropriate Government may call for copies of whatever documents are necessary from petitioner and / or opposite party no.3. 12. Considering opposite party no.3 is complaining of hardship, we expect the appropriate Government to act expeditiously. 13. The Interim order is confirmed to continue till two weeks after the appropriate Government makes known to petitioner its order on the transfer application. 14. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge Jyoti (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-Jan-2025 10:53:14 W.P.(C) No.24524 of 2024 Page 7 of 7