Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Sri Khirod Kumar Sahu on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 38131 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
State of Odisha .... Petitioner
-versus-
Sri Khirod Kumar Sahu .... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For petitioner - Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA
For Opp. Party - Mr. Manas Pati, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 27.02.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate
appears on behalf of the management. He submits, impugned is award
dated 31st March, 2016. Opposite party was engaged for two days in a
week, amounting to eight days in a month. In the circumstances, he
could not be said to have been in continuous service for any period. He
draws attention to earlier award dated 10th January, 2012 on the same
// 2 //
order of reference dated 8th October, 2010 to point out that his client's
contention was recorded therein. We extract and reproduce a passage
from said award.
"xxx xxx xxx To dispel the stand taken by the workman
that he was not paid with my remuneration, M.W. 1 in his
examination-in-chief asserted that the workman was
engaged in the stop gap arrangement and at para-5 of the
affidavit stated specifically that he was engaged as a part
time labourer on daily wage basis at Rs.40/- from May,
2006 to March, 2007 and at para-11 asserted that before
termination of the engagement with effect from
01.04.2007 not 01.06.2007 as claimed by the workman he
had not at all worked without interruption for a period of
240 days xxx xxx xxx"
2. On query from Court he submits, earlier award was set aside
without reservation, on the workman having had challenged it in this
Court. On remand, impugned award dated 31st March, 2016 came to be
passed. On further query from Court, he is unable to disclose reference
to any material in impugned award to substantiate his client's contention
that the workman was engaged temporarily and did not work for
continuous period of 240 days in the year preceding the reference.
3. Mr. Pati, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party
workman. He submits, on wrongful termination his client had applied
// 3 //
for relief under section 17-B, by making application under section 33-
C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that case, his client obtained
relief. The Industrial Dispute was referred by aforesaid order of
reference. In the adjudication, the labour Court fell to error by finding
resjudicata against his client, in having earlier applied for and obtained
relief under section 17-B. Hence, his client successfully challenged the
award in this Court. It was set aside with direction for re-adjudication on
remand. As such, pursuant to self same order of reference dated 8th
October, 2010, impugned award dated 31st March, 2016 came to be
passed.
4. He relies on first sentence in paragraph-16 of impugned award,
extracted and reproduced below.
"Therefore, on clinical analysis of the entire materials
available on record, it remains undisputed that the
workman was engaged to work for the whole of the month
during his service from 1991 till his disengaged in the
year 2007."
He submits, the management has not been able to show that there was
relevant evidence of his client having had been temporarily engaged to
demonstrate that he did not qualify to be protected under section 25-F of
the Act. In the circumstances, there should not be interference.
// 4 //
5. It will appear from above that the management has not been
able to demonstrate perversity in impugned award. Submissions made
on behalf of the workman, therefore, are to be accepted. We do accept
the same.
6. The writ petition is found to be without merit and it is
dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Sks
