Orissa High Court
Osrtc vs Sulochana Gochhi And Others on 19 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 6439 of 2013
OSRTC, Cuttack .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Sulochana Gochhi and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 19.07.2022
09. 1. The Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (OSRTC) has filed
this petition challenging an order dated 3rd January, 2012 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar ('Tribunal') in I.D. Case
No.121 of 2008.
2. While notice was issued in the present petition on 29th April, 2015
no stay of the impugned Award was granted under which the
Petitioner was asked to pay the legal representatives (LRs) of the
deceased workman the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five
Thousand) compensation for wrongful termination of the services.
3. In the above circumstances, when the case was heard on 14th
September, 2021 this Court after noticing that the Petitioner had not
even paid the said amount to the Opposite Party directed the
Petitioner to deposit in this Court Rs.75,000/- on or before 1st
November, 2021 and the said amount to be kept in a fixed deposit in
a nationalized bank initially for a period of three months and
thereafter be kept renewed till further orders. Pursuant thereto, the
said amount was deposited by the Petitioner in this Court.
4. The background facts are that the Opposite Party workman was
employed as a conductor with the Petitioner OSRTC. He was
dismissed from service with effect from 30th August, 1993 after
being charge sheeted on 19th June, 1989. The dispute arising from
the said dismissal was referred to for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal to adjudicate the following question:
"Whether the termination of services of Sri Bihari
Gochhi, Conductor with effect from 30.8.93 by the
District Transport Manager (A), OSTRC, Cuttack is
legal and/or justified? If not, what relief he is
entitled to?"
5. In the Award dated 3rd January, 2012, the Tribunal considered
two issues. The first was whether the domestic enquiry conducted
was fair and proper. This was answered in the affirmative. The
second issue was whether the dismissal of the workman from service
was legal and/or justified. In para 12 of the impugned Award, it was
concluded that in terms of the enquiry report, the workman had been
found guilty of carrying ticketless passengers "several occasions"
and on that short ground the punishment of discharge/dismissal from
service was upheld.
6. However, the Labour Court proceeded to notice that as on the date
of dismissal in ID Case Nos.19 and 21 of 1989 was pending before
the Tribunal at the instance of the Petitioner Management in which
the deceased workman was a concerned workman. It must be noticed
here that during pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal the
workman died on 17th February, 1997. Acknowledging the pendency
of the above dispute before the Tribunal, Misc. Case No.34 of 1993
was filed by OSRTC seeking approval of the Tribunal from
proceeding further for approval of the action taken by the OSRTC in
the domestic enquiry. After the workman died, on 21st February,
1998 the Management withdrew the above Misc. Case No.34 of
1993.
7. However, in the meanwhile, the workman had filed Misc. Case
No.1 of 1995 under Section 33-A of the ID Act contending that there
had been violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act by the
Management in proceeding to terminate his services without seeking
approval of the action of dismissal. This application apparently was
still pending before the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal then decided to call for the records of both the cases
and found that while orders were passed in Misc. Case No.34 of
1993 filed by the Management dismissing it as withdrawn, no order
in fact been passed in Misc. Case No.1 of 1995 filed by the
workman. Applying the principles settled by the Supreme Court of
India in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram
Gopal Sharma AIR 2002 SC 643 and United Bank of India v.
Sidhartha Chakraborty AIR 2007 SC 3071 the Tribunal held that
the dismissal to be invalid for non-compliance by the Management
with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend, on the
strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan
General Electrical Corporation Ltd. v. Biswanath Prasad AIR 1971
SC 2417, that the mere fact that there was non-compliance of
Section 33(b)(2) of the ID Act would not automatically mean that
the workman would be entitled to reinstatement.
10. In the present case, with the workman already having died during
the pendency of the proceedings way back on 17th February, 1997
the question of reinstatement did not in any event arise. The law is
well settled regarding non-compliance with the provisions of Section
33(2)(b) of ID Act. The only relief that could be granted, as was
granted in the present case, was that of the compensation to the LRs
of the deceased workman. That is indeed the only relief granted to
the Opposite Parties here.
11. The facts in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Satya Prakash (2013) 9 SCC 232 also reveals that the Tribunal there
had directed reinstatement of the workman. The facts also showed
that the misconduct in that case had been conducted "very short span
of service". In the present case, with the workman already having
died on 17th February, 1997 and only his LRs having sought justice
thereafter for more than 20 years, the compensation of Rs.75,000/-
should be viewed as meager.
12. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no grounds
to interfere with the impugned Award of the Tribunal. The petition is
accordingly dismissed. A sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five
Thousand) together with the interest accrued thereon shall be
released forth in favour of the Opposite Parties by the Registry upon
proper verification within a period of two weeks from today.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
