Orissa High Court
The Sr. Divisional Manager vs Sri Sankarsan Sahoo And Another on 7 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13219 of 2005
The Sr. Divisional Manager, Tata Iron .... Petitioner
& Steel Co. Ltd.
M/s. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate and associates
-versus-
Sri Sankarsan Sahoo and another .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Sradha Das, Advocate for O.P. No.1
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 07.03.2022
25. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an award dated 30th
July 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial
Dispute Case No.120 of 1994.
2. The dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was
as under:
"Whether the action of the management of the Tata
Iron and Steel Company Limited, Paradeep in
terminating the services of Sri Sankarsan Sahoo,
Technical Helper with effect from 4.8.90 is legal
and/or justified ? If not what relief Sri Sahoo is
entitled to?"
3. The case of the Workman was that he was engaged as
Technical Helper under the Management with effect from 7th
May 1985 under the direct control of the Divisional Manager of
the Management at Paradeep Port Branch on a daily wage basis
at the rate of Rs.25/- per day and rendered continuous
uninterrupted service from then on till 4th August, 1990.
Questioning his illegal termination with effect from 4th August
1990 as being in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), he raised the above industrial
dispute.
4. In order to substantiate his claim, the Workman examined
himself as WW-1 and two other witnesses and relied on xerox
copies of the documents including temporary pass for civil
workers, call letters and so on. On the side of the Management,
two witnesses were examined.
5. The Labour Court has in the impugned order thoroughly
discussed the evidence. It has come to the conclusion that
nothing could be elicited on the cross-examination of the
Workman's witnesses to disprove their evidence regarding the
workman having rendered continuous service. The evidence
rendered by the Management witnesses was also discussed in
great detail and it was concluded that the Workman had been
able to establish his case of having rendered continuous service
of 240 days in the preceding twelve months prior to his
termination. The inevitable conclusion therefore was of non-
compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act. The operative portion
of the impugned award was grant of the relief of reinstatement in
service with lump sum compensation of Rs.3000/- towards back
wages.
6. While directing notice to be issued in the present petition on
2nd January 2006, this Court stayed the operation of the
impugned award subject to compliance with Section 17 B of the
Act.
7. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the above
interim order was complied with and now Opposite Party No.1
has already attained the age of superannuation making it
impractical for the Management to reinstate him in service.
Reliance is placed on a judgment in Range Forest Officer v. S.T.
Hadimani AIR 2002 SC 1147 to urge that the burden of showing
that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously during
the preceding twelve months was on the Workman and that in the
present case the Workman had not discharged that burden.
Reliance is also placed on the decision in Krishna Bhagya Jala
Nigam Limited v. Mohammed Rafi (2009) 11 SCC 522, which is
to the same effect.
8. While the ratio of the aforementioned two decisions is
unexceptionable, as far as the present case is concerned, the
Court is satisfied that the Workman discharged the burden placed
on him by not only examining himself, but two other witnesses
and also placing on record the relevant documents and proving
them. These witnesses were subjected to cross examination, but
nothing could be elicited to contradict their version that the
Workman had indeed rendered 240 continuous days of service in
the preceding twelve months prior to his termination. This being
a matter purely of appreciation of evidence and with the learned
counsel for the Petitioner being unable to point out anything
perverse in the impugned award, the Court is not inclined to
interfere.
9. Therefore, notwithstanding that one portion of the award
regarding reinstatement cannot be practically implemented at this
stage, the Court sees no reason to interfere. The writ petition is
dismissed.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S.K. Guin
