Orissa High Court
Batakrushna Dash vs M/S. Vertiaz Health Care Limited on 18 April, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
W.P.(C) NO.17425 OF 2015
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Batakrushna Dash : Petitioner
-Versus-
M/s. Vertiaz Health Care Limited, Cuttack :Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mishra, Adv.
Mr. G.Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. K.R.Mohanty, Adv.
For O.Ps. : None
JUDGMENT
CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 18.04.2023
1. Even though there is a set of counsel appearing for first party
management being opposite party herein but unfortunately today
nobody is appearing to contest the matter.
2. On perusal of the impugned Award, this Court finds, there is
no contest even by the first party management in the industrial
adjudication vide I.D. Case No. 17 of 2014.
// 2 //
3. This Writ Petition involves a challenge to the Award at
Annexure-3 in I.D. Case No. 17 of 2014 only confining to the
direction at the end of the paragraph-6 depriving the Petitioner
from the continuity of service even after coming to observe in the
last part of paragraph-5 that the workman is entitled to reinstate in
service on the footing that the termination of the workman suffered
for noncompliance of principle of natural justice. This Court
records satisfaction of the workman to the other aspects
particularly the direction for reinstatement of service passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 17 of 2014.
4. Taking this Court to the limited challenge involved herein as
to if in the circumstances and reasoning assigned by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court in disposal of the I.D. Case No. 17 of 2014,
the Petitioner - Workman is entitled to get benefits of continuity of
service, taking to the discussion part at paragraph-5 and the finding
therein, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws the
attention of this Court to categoric the findings and the direction of
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court entitling the second party
reinstating in service under the first party management. It is in this
background of the direction of the Presiding Officer, Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for the Petitioner claims that the ultimate direction
// 3 //
at Paragraph-6 becomes contrary to the whole direction at
Paragraph-5.
5. Keeping in view the limited challenge involving the Award
involved herein, this Court finds, the Labour Court has finally
come to observe <it is clear that the second party was a permanent
employee of the first party management. Without any domestic
inquiry the second party was removed from his service, he was not
provided with an opportunity to defend him. The first party
management as not followed the principle of natural justice, the
order passed by the management vide Ext. 19 is illegal. So the
second party was entitled for reinstatement in service under the
first party management.= In further caveat to the Management to
work out the direction for reinstatement of the second party within
two months of the notification of the Award in the official gazette,
keeping in view the specific direction at paragraph-5 of the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, this Court finds, the direction at
paragraph-6 disentitling the workman from the service benefits of
continuity of service remains contrary to the whole finding of
direction at paragraph-5.
6. In this circumstance, this Court interferes with the direction
part at paragraph-6 on disentitling the Petitioner from continuity of
service and setting aside that part of the direction modifies the
// 4 //
direction at paragraph-6 directing thereby while first party
management reinstating the Petitioner into service shall also
provide the benefits of continuity of service.
7. Writ Petition succeeds but with modification of direction at
paragraph-6 to the extent indicated herein above. No cost.
(M.S.Sahoo) (Biswanath Rath)
Judge Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 18th April, 2023//
Utkalika Nayak, Junior Stenographer
