(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Central Govt. Industrial ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2776 Ori

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                WP(C) No.36644 of 2021

                 (Through Hybrid mode)
Balaram Negi and others               ....           Petitioners

                                    In WP(C) no.36644 of 2021

Upendra Kumar Sahu                     ....          Petitioner
                                    In WP(C) no.19533 of 2021

Panchanan Pradhan                    ....            Petitioner
                                    In WP(C) no.19536 of 2021

Krushna Chandra Dora                   ....         Petitioner
                                    In WP(C) no.19538 of 2021

Arjun Biswal and others                ....         Petitioners
                                    In WP(C) no.37354 of 2021

Balkrishna Bhoi @ Balakrushna Bhoi ....         Petitioners
and others
                                In WP(C) no.37355 of 2021

                           -Versus-
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal     ....     Opposite Parties
(CGIT)-Cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar and others

Advocates appeared in these cases:

For Management : Mr. Saswat K. Acharya, Advocate
                   Ms. Jagruti Sahoo, Advocate
                   Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Advocate
[Petitioners in WP(C) nos.19533, 19536 and 19538 of 2021]
For Workmen        : Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, Advocate
                   Mr. Tarun Kanta Pattanayak, Advocate
                   Mr. Sunil Kumar Swain, Advocate
[Petitioners in WP(C) nos.37355, 36644 and 37354 of 2021

                                                    Page 1 of 3
        CORAM:

                     JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                     JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                      ORDER

04.04.2023

WP(C) nos.36644, 19533, 19536, 19538, 37354 and 37355 of 2021 Order No.

03. 1. Three contractors have individually challenged common award dated 18th December, 2020 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. Their writ petitions were presented prior to three writ petitions filed by sixteen workmen challenging same award. The Tribunal had directed the contractors to pay Rs.4 lakhs each to the workmen in the reference, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. There was also direction to pay interest on default. The workmen by their writ petitions have challenged the award on contending that they ought to have been given reinstatement and back wages, the finding that they had achieved age of superannuation being not based on relevant evidence and, therefore, perverse.

2. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of the contractors (management). He submits, finding that the domestic enquiry was unfair, was made illegally and with material irregularity. As such, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to venture further for purported determination on claims of the workmen for reinstatement and back wages.

3. Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of the workmen and relies on finding in impugned award regarding the preliminary as well as the other issues. On those there should be no interference but, where some workmen had received settlement, the Tribunal acted illegally and with irregularity in directing reinstatement with back wages to his clients, who did not compromise on their principled stand.

4. We have made cursory perusal of impugned award. We do not find reference to any exhibits as tendered in the Tribunal. We note that Mr. Acharya has relied on judgment dated 25th April, 2007 made by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh in Civil Suit no.45 of 2006 (The Associated Cement Companies Limited v. Dungri Khani Mazdoor Sangh and others).

5. The LCR(s) pertaining to impugned award dated 18 th December, 2020 in ID case nos.10, 12 and 13 of 2008 be called for urgently. Parties are to come ready to demonstrate tendering of documents as exhibits, for reliance thereon as necessary for the adjudication.

6. List on 13th April, 2023.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

RKS