State Of Orissa & Anr vs Sadasiba Pradhan & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3637 Ori

                                       1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P (C) No.13990 of 2010

State of Orissa & Anr.               .....                              Petitioner
                                                         Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
                                     Vs.
Sadasiba Pradhan & Anr.              .....                       Opposite Parties
                                                                Mr. K.C. Sahu
                                                                        (O.P.1)

             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                            ORDER

18.04.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the workman-opposite party no.1.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the award dated 20.04.2010 passed in I.D. Case No.02 of 2009, by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar held that the workman-opposite party no.1 is entitled to reinstatement in service and as regards back wages, the Management was directed to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- and implement the award within a period of two months.

4. Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the workman- opposite party no.1 contended that the petitioner was engaged by the Women's Polytechnic, Bhubaneswar. Therefore, the workman- opposite party no.1 is entitled to reinstatement in service, as the management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the petitioners disputed the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was not appointed by the Department, rather he was engaged under the scheme and the said scheme has been closed. Therefore, the direction given by the Labour Court to reinstate the workman-opposite party no.1 does not arise and even though the management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman may entitle to get compensation. Therefore, the question of reinstatement of the workman-opposite party no.1 does not arise. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Kailash Narayan Sharma, (2014) 16 SCC 440 and Ranbir Singh v. Executive Eng. P.W.D., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 670.

6. During course of argument, this Court made a query calling upon learned counsel appearing for the workman-opposite party no.1 to produce the engagement order issued by the Department.

7. Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the workman- opposite party no.1 undertakes to produce the engagement order issued by the Department.

8. Put up this matter after two weeks.

                                       (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                            JUDGE



Alok                                     (M.S. RAMAN)
                                            JUDGE