Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa And Another vs Udaya Nath Mallick on 16 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14994 of 2006
State of Orissa and another .... Petitioners
Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
-Versus-
Udaya Nath Mallick .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. B. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 16.02.2022
R.K. Pattanaik, J
22. 1. Legality and judicial propriety of the award dated 18th
September, 2003 (Annexure-3) passed in I.D. Case No.327 of
1995 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court (in short
'the Labour Court') is under question at the behest of the
Petitioners ('Management') on the grounds inter alia that the
findings and direction for reinstatement of the Opposite Party
(shortly 'Workman') with 30% back wages to be unjustified
and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the Management and Mr. S.B.
Mohanty, learned counsel for the Workman.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the Workman is that he was
engaged as an Amin-cum-Work Sarkar @ Rs. 35/- per day in
// 2 //
Aul Irrigation Sub-Division with effect from 1st November,
1991 but was refused employment from 15th October, 1992
and retrenched without notice and payment of compensation in
violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1967 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'),
where after, dispute was raised with a reference made as to
whether such termination or refusal of employment with effect
from 15th October, 1992 was legal or justified and if not, to
what relief, the Workman was entitled.
4. The Labour Court answered the reference against the
Management with a conclusion that the termination was
without any prior notice or notice pay and retrenchment
compensation which is illegal and against the mandate of
Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, directed reinstatement
of the Workman in service with 30% back wages. The
aforesaid decision of the Labour Court and direction for
reinstatement has been challenged by the Management as not
being sustainable in law.
5. Before the Labour Court, the Management led
evidence. In fact, evidence was adduced from the side of
Petitioner No.1, whereas, Petitioner No.2 abstained.
Considering the materials on record, the learned Labour Court
reached at a decision that the Workman was engaged under
Jajpur Irrigation Division with effect from 1st November, 1991
till 15th October, 1992. The stand of the Management was that
the Workman was employed on a daily wage basis as and
// 3 //
when required and the wages thereof had been paid to him.
However, as against such a claim, the Labour Court concluded
that in any case, the Workman proved to have been engaged
and employed for more than 240 days and at the time of
termination, the Management was obliged to comply Section
25-F of the Act and for having not done so, such
disengagement was unjustified.
6. No rebuttal evidence could be produced by the
Management in order to contradict the claim of such
continuous service of more than 240 days rendered by the
Workman which led the Labour Court to reach at a conclusion
that reinstatement should be directed. The conclusion so
arrived at by the Labour Court with regard to employment of
Workman for more than 240 days with effect from 1st
November, 1991 till 15th October, 1992 is, therefore, to be
accepted in absence of materials to the contrary.
7. Question would be, whether, the reinstatement of the
Workman with 30% back wages as has been directed by the
Labour Court should be sustained? Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned
Additional Government Advocate contended that the
impugned award under Annexure-3 is to be disturbed in view
of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madhya Bharat
Gramin Bank Vs. Panchamlal Yadav (Civil Appeal No.9792
of 2010) and Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Eng. P.W.D (Civil
Appeal No.4483 of 2010) decided on 13th July, 2021 and 2nd
September, 2021 respectively. In the above cases, the Supreme
// 4 //
Court directed payment of compensation instead of
reinstatement on the ground that it would serve the purpose
and meet the ends of justice. Referring to the above judgments,
it is contended for the Management that the Workman is
entitled to monetary compensation only.
8. The Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh (supra) was of
the view that in case of daily wage worker, reinstatement with
back wages should not be automatic and monetary
compensation would rather serve the purpose by
demonstrating the rationality. In the instant case, the Workman
was terminated by the Management without notice and
retrenchment compensation, for which, it was held by the
Labour Court to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. In
the above decision, a view was expressed that approach for
reinstatement should be in favour of daily wage worker under
certain situations or else, retrenchment in disregard to Section
25-F of the Act should be saddled with monetary
compensation.
9. By order dated 7th March, 2011, this Court directed the
Management to pay the Workman wages @ Rs.90/- per day on
monthly basis forthwith until further orders and also back
wages at the same rate from 1st November, 2006 till the end of
February, 2011, where after, the Management proceeded to
pay the arrear dues in terms of Section 17-B of the Act as
revealed from the Court's order dated 17th May, 2011 and at
last, in compliance thereof, disbursed an amount of
// 5 //
Rs.48,405/-. Under Annexure-3, no full but payment of 30%
back wages has been allowed by the Labour Court. As earlier
mentioned, on the direction of this Court, the arrear dues for
the period from 1st December, 2006 to 30th April, 2011 was
drawn and disbursed to the Workman receipt of which stands
duly acknowledged as is further evident from the Court's order
dated 25th August, 2011. Under the above peculiar facts and
circumstances, the Court is of the considered view that it
should not interfere with the impugned award under
Annexure-3 which nevertheless directs reinstatement but
allows only 30% of the back wages payable to the Workman
which does not appear to be in any way excess or grossly
disproportionate. In other words, the Court is not inclined to
disturb the findings of the Labour Court in the backdrop of the
special facts narrated above and accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
T. Tudu
