Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs Presiding Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 4183 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          WP(C) No.11339 of 2016

   Hindustan Petroleum Corporation                 ....                      Petitioner
   Limited
                                        -versus-
   Presiding Officer, Labour Court,                ....              Opposite Parties
   Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others

   Advocates appeared in this case :

   For Petitioner :                       Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra,
                                          Senior Advocate with
                                          Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra, Advocate

   For Opposite Party No.1 :              Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate,
                                          (Additional Government Advocate)

   For Opposite Party Nos.2 to 7: Mr. A.N. Das, Advocate


   CORAM:
   JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
   JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dates of hearing: 27.02.2023, 13.03.2023 and 24.04.2023
   Date of Judgment: 24.04.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner (management). He submits, there has since been set up

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) at

Bhubaneswar. He submits, the industrial dispute is between the oil

company and, inter alia, its contractor. Therefore, appropriate

government as per section 2 in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the

Central Government. Hence, upon setting up of the Tribunal, the

Labour Court lost its jurisdiction to deal with the industrial dispute

and any miscellaneous case arising or connected therewith. On query

from Court he submits, section 7 provides for constitution of Labour

Courts by the appropriate government.

2. He files a brief of documents with copies to Mr. Das, learned

advocate appearing on behalf of the workman and Mr. Sharma,

learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appearing on

behalf of opposite party no.1. The documents include, inter alia, order

dated 15th December, 2000, text of which is reproduced below.

"Consequent upon the setting up of a Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in Bhubaneswar under section 7 to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all the central sphere cases numbering 302+90 pending in the State Industrial Tribunal of Bhubaneswar and Rourkela respectively as per the list furnished by these Tribunals may be

transferred for adjudication to the CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar under section 33-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

On query from Court, Mr. Mishra submits, the I.D. case was not

transferred pursuant to above order because before that, award dated

1st December, 2000 had been made and published, under challenge by

his client in OJC no.1883 of 2001.

3. He submits, the Misc. Case under section 33-C(2) could not

have been filed in year 2012 before the Labour Court. As such, his

client made application challenging maintainability of the proceeding

in said Court, on constitution of the CGIT at Bhubaneswar. The

application is annexure-3, while impugned order dated 21st

November, 2014 made by the Labour Court, rejecting it, is

annexure-4.

4. Mr. Das submits, award dated 1st December, 2000 was

challenged by the management, in this Court. Interim order dated 22nd

February, 2001 was made staying the award. His client filed Misc.

Case under section 17-B. The interim order then stood vacated on 11th

August, 2011 and impugned order came to be passed, under section

33-C(2). He adds, there be direction for the Misc. Case to be

transferred to the CGIT. Mr. Mishra replies, in that event it be made

clear that the Misc. Case be proceeded with by the transferee Court on

and from the position, restored by setting aside impugned order.

5. Perused the order sheet. Petitioner (management) had

obtained interim order on 21st July, 2016, having moved the writ

petition presented earlier on 1st July, 2016 against order dated 21st

November, 2014. By interim order dated 21st July, 2016, there was

direction that in case petitioner files application before the Labour

Court in the Misc. Case seeking adjournment, in such event the Court

below shall stay further proceeding till 23rd August, 2016. The interim

order was continued from time to time and lastly by order dated 16th

February, 2017, made by coordinate Bench. Thereby it was to

continue till the next listing. Order sheet bears subsequent order dated

12th May, 2017, which did not continue the interim order. We, by our

order dated 27th February, 2023 continued the interim order till next

date of hearing on the management having filed interim application

being I.A. No.15594 of 2022.

6. Clearly, the industrial dispute case, culminating in said award

dated 1st December, 2000, was not counted for transfer by aforesaid

order dated 15th December, 2000. It was not one of the 302 cases

directed to be transferred thereby to the CGIT, simply because the

reference stood concluded earlier on 1st December, 2000. In the writ

petition challenging said award, interim order of stay stood vacated

on 11th August, 2011. Opposite party (workman) thereafter

approached the Labour Court under section 33-C(2). On query from

Court, we have ascertained that petitioner (management) was

represented in the Labour Court. We have already pointed out, there

was delay of almost two years, in presenting this writ petition,

challenging impugned order. Furthermore, there were gaps when the

interim order, obtained herein, was not operating. In the

circumstances the Labour Court proceeded with the Misc. Case, as is

submission on behalf of both, petitioner (management) as well as the

workman.

7. Sections 38 to 42 in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide

for execution of decree by the Court, which passed it, the transferee

Court and their respective powers. The workman had filed the Misc.

Case for computation of the relief flowing out of the award, available

to him as entitled thereunder. It is in the nature of execution of the

award. The Code says a decree may be executed either by the Court,

which passed it or by the Court, to which it is sent for execution and

the transferee Court will have the same power as the original Court.

In this case, regarding the transfer, no order has been passed under

section 33-B. In the circumstances, by reason of parties having

participated in the Misc. Case and the Labour Court as may have

proceed therewith, in the time interim order was not obtained and

thereafter had not been extended, having power to do so, we direct

transfer of the Misc. Case to the CGIT, for the case to be proceeded

with prospectively. The record in ID Misc. Case no.61 of 2012 be

transmitted forthwith from Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to the CGIT,

for the Tribunal to proceed from the stage, up to which the case stands

dealt with by the Labour Court. Our direction for transfer is made

under section 24 in the Code. That it can be made may be seen from

order dated 25th January, 2022 in WP(C) no.2840 of 2002 (Prafulla

Chandra Pradhan v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

and another).

8. The transferee Court will expeditiously deal with the Misc.

Case, preferably within three months from date. The Registry is to

communicate this order to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for

immediate transmission of the record in ID Misc. Case no.61 of 2012

to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar. On transfer the case be registered on re-number and

proceeded with as directed.

9. The writ petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge

P. Pradhan