Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Baral vs Managing Director on 28 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.19329 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.18011 of 2011
Ratnakar Baral .... Petitioner
(In W.P. (C) No.19329 of 2010)
Mr. R. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
Managing Director, Orissa State Co- .... Opposite Parties
operative Marketing Federation
Limited, Bhubaneswar and another
Mr. S. K. Pattnaik, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. U. C. Mohanty, Advocate
Orissa State Co-operative Marketing .... Petitioners
Federation Limited, Bhubaneswar and
another
(In W.P. (C) No.18011 of 2011)
Mr. S. K. Pattnaik, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. U. C. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Ratnakar Baral .... Opposite Party
Mr. R. Acharya, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
28.03.2022
Order No.
11. 1. There are two writ petitions filed against the same Award of the
dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar (Tribunal) in Industrial Dispute Case No.77 of 2008.
One is by the Workman and the other one by the Management.
2. By the said Award, the Tribunal has held that the termination of
the services of the Workman by the Orissa State Co-operative
Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar (Management) was not in
compliance with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) since the Workman had rendered
continuous service of more than 240 days, year preceding the
termination. Accordingly, the Management has directed to reinstate
the Workman and also to pay him a lump sum compensation of
Rs.20,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the compensation amount and praying for its
enhancement, the Workman has filed the petition (W.P.(C)
No.19329 of 2010). As far as the Management is concerned, it is
aggrieved by the fact that the Workman has been asked to be
reinstated.
4. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. R. Acharya, learned
counsel for the Workman and Mr. S. K. Pattnaik, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Management.
5. Mr. Acharya points out that in a similar circumstance, this Court
had by an order dated 24th February, 2022 in W.P.(C) No.1131 of
2007 (Orissa State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar and another v. Lokanath Pradhan and another)
upheld a similar Award passed by the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for the
Management submits that admittedly the Petitioner was working in
a scheme with the Management, which was for a limited duration.
According to him, once the scheme came to an end, the
employment of the Workman could not have been continued. It is
in those circumstances that a letter was issued to the Workman on
26th April, 1993 terminating his services with effect from 30th April,
1993. It is submitted on merits that in the judgments of the Supreme
Court in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka,
(2003) 4 SCC 27, Haryana State Electronics Development
Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427, Jagbir Singh v.
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327
and Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v.
Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136., compensation in lieu of
reinstatement has been accepted as a norm notwithstanding the fact
that the requirements of Section 25-F of the ID Act may not have
been complied with.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, the Court is of the view that the impugned Award does
not call for any interference. Even assuming that the Petitioner had
been employed under the scheme that had come to an end, the fact
remains that even for a period of two years after the conclusion of
the scheme in April, 1991, the Workman continued to be engaged
for another two years. Therefore, his employment was clearly not
co-terminus with the scheme as is sought to be contended by the
Management in this Court.
8. As regards the prayer that there should be compensation in lieu
of reinstatement, considering that the Petitioner is already 62 years
old, reinstatement is not even possible and correspondingly to order
compensation at this stage does not seem practicable. During the
pendency of the present petition the Workman could not get back
into service and was paid wages under Section 17-B of the ID Act
and that too after intervention by this Court.
9. The Court therefore does not consider it appropriate to interfere
with the impugned Award of the Tribunal. Both the writ petitions
are accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda
