Orissa High Court
M/S. Indian Farmers vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 October, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 9842 OF 2009
AND
W.P.(C) No.16443 OF 2009
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR In W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009
M/s. Indian Farmers
Fertilizer Co-operative Limited,
Jagatsinghpur and Another ..... Petitioners
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
along with M/s. S.P. Sarangi, P.K.
Dash, B.C. Mohanty, D.K. Das &
A. Pattnaik, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate along with
M/s. P.K. Das (1), S. Das, S.P. Das &
N. Singh, Advocates
[O.P.2]
In W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2009
The workmen represented by
Paradeep Industrial Worker's
Union through its General Secretary,
Jagatsinghpur and others ..... Petitioners
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others ..... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : M/s. P.K. Das(1), S. Das, S.P. Das &
S. Mallick, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along
with M/s. S.P. Sarangi, P.P. Mohanty,
P.K. Dash, B.C. Mohanty, D.K. Das &
A. Pattanaik, Advocates [O.P.2]
Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate along with
M/s. N. Singh and A.C. Sahu,
Advocates [O.Ps.5-13]
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing: 09.10.2023 :: Date of Judgment : 18.10.2023
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. Both the above noted writ petitions have
been filed impugning the award dated 18.05.2009 passed
by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.4 of 2005.
W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 has been filed by the
Management seeking following reliefs:-
"In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this
Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue a
Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show
cause as to why the impugned award dated
18.05.2009 vide Annexure-2 shall not be quashed
and if Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute.
Issue such other writ/ writs, order/ orders,
direction/ directions, as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fir and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners
shall as in duty bound ever pray."
whereas, W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2009 has been filed by the
workmen with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that the writ
application may kindly be admitted and the LCR
mau be called for in I.D Case No.4 of 2005 from the
industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and this Hon'ble
Court may be kind and gracious enough to issue
"RULE NISI" calling upon the Opposite Parties to
show cause and if the Opposite parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause then make the rule
absolute."
And be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
and /or certiorari and modify the award in I.D Case
No.4 of passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar under Annexure -14 from granting
reinstatement to eight workmen without backwages"
to reinstatement to all the 51 workmen with full
backwages and continuity of services.
And/or be pleased to direct the IFFCO to take
back and reinstate all the 51 workmen from the date
of their termination/ refusal of employment as stated
in the reference order under Annexure-2 with all back
wages and continuity of service and to consider the
same the O.P No.4 may be directed to co- operate the
IFFCO as in the case of the other general employees
of the erstwhile factory / plant of OCFL at Musadia,
Paradeep including protecting their Provident Fund
and Gratuity intact;
And/ or be pleased to pass any other order as
deem fir and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioners
as in duty bound shall ever pray."
Since both the writ petitions are directed against a
common order, they were heard together and are disposed
of by this common judgment, which will govern in both
the cases.
2. The factual matrix, which led to filing of these
writ petitions, succinctly put as follows:-
2.1. One hundred fifty-one (151) workmen were
stated to have been selected and appointed through the
selection process conducted by the Management of M/s.
OSWAL Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. for its Paradeep
factory/plant. They were all regular workmen, being
members of the Provident Fund Scheme OR/5640, having
been issued with appointment letters and identity cards.
They had worked for about four years with continuity in
service from 2000 to 2004 with 240 days in every year and
to the preceding one year of illegal termination of their
services. They were terminated from service in three
phases, i.e., on 29.07.2004 (50 workmen), on 03.08.2004
(47 workmen) and on 07.08.2004 (54 workmen). Their
termination of services, in the guise of refusal of
employment, was completely illegal, because no letter of
termination was issued nor any compensation was paid to
them.
2.2. They were the active members of the Paradeep
Industrial Workers' Union. Therefore, on their request and
authorization, the Union raised an industrial dispute on
15.09.2004, which was admitted to conciliation
proceeding by the District Labour Officer (DLO),
Jagatsinghpur, vide notice/memo no.1961 dated
04.10.2004/DLO, Jagatsinghpur, after completing all
formalities under the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder. The views of
the Management was sought on 21.09.2004, vide DLO's
memo no.1907, and a meeting was held on 04.10.2004,
wherein the Management did not attend but sent a letter
objecting the locus standi of the Union to espouse the
cause of the ousted workmen.
2.3. The workmen and the Union participated in the
said conciliation proceeding on 15.10.2004 with the
authorization Form 'G' under Rule-38 of the Odisha
Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959 and the matter was
adjourned to 03.11.2004 and 29.11.2004, but the
conciliation failed due to non-cooperation of the
Management of M/s. OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.
The District Labour Officer, Jagatsingpur, vide letter
no.2410/DLO dated 30.11.2004, submitted the failure
report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 to the appropriate State Government.
2.4. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section
(5) of Section 12 read with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947), the State Government referred the dispute to the
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
constituted by the Government of Odisha in the Labour
and Employment Department Notification No.12198/LE
dated 7th September, 1995 read with Notification
No.3718/LE dated 13.04.2005 for adjudication, which
reads as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s-
OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Musadia,
Paradeep in refusing employment to Shri Biswanath
Choudhury and 49 others from 29.7.2004 (as per
list), Sri Ajay Sahoo and 46 others with effect from
3.8.04 (as per list) and Sri Guru Charan Rout & 53
others with effect from 7.8.04 (as per list) is legal
and/or justified ? if not, what relief they are entitled
to ?
2.5. The said reference was registered as I.D. Case
No.4 of 2005 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, wherein workmen filed
their claim statement on 01.09.2005 contending that M/s.
OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., which have its head
office at 7th floor, Anthriksh Bhawan, 22 Kasturba Gandhi
Marg, New Deli and Regd. Office, At/P.O: Piprola,
Sanajahanpur (U.P) and factory at Musadia, Paradeep,
Dist-Jagatsinghpur, started its production in the year
1999 and its commercial production from January, 2000
onwards having a workforce of about 3000 workers, out of
which about 1500 are permanent workmen and rest about
1500 are contractor-workers. Though the financial
position of the Management was a bright one, but the
workmen were treated in-humanly like the bonded
labourers and there was complete breakdown of Labour
laws. Since the Management was engaged in violating the
Factory Act, 1948, E.P.F. & Misc. Provision, 1952,
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc. by adopting 12 hours
duty, without giving overtime, medical or ESI facility,
provident fund and maternity benefits to female workers,
and creating discrimination in grade and scale to the
contractor workers as well as permanent workers, the
workers formed and organized themselves into a Trade
Union, i.e., Paradeep Industrial workers Union, having
Regd. No.OTO829-CTC-2005. As the Union became a
weapon in the hands of the workmen to free them from
the various type of exploitations, its active members
became target of the Management. As a consequence
thereof, the Management disengaged 151 permanent
workmen. Biswanath Choudhury and 49 others from
29.07.2004, Ajay Sahoo and 46 others from 03.08.2004
and Guru Charan Rout and 53 others from 07.08.2004
(50 + 47 + 54) =151 were disengaged/stopped from duty
arbitrarily without any rhyme or reason and their services
were terminated without complying Sections 25-F and 25-
N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules
framed therein. Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was also violated by the Management.
2.6. It was further stated that the Management did
not issue any written communication/order to the said
151 workmen, but terminated their services in the name
of refusal of employment out of colourable exercise of
employer's rights. The workmen through the Union gave a
demand letter addressing to the Labour Department and a
copy to the Management, vide its letter dated 15.09.2004,
wherein other demands including the cause of 151
workmen were raised in the form of an industrial dispute
since they were victimized by terminating their services
without following due procedure.
2.7. When the Union raised industrial dispute on
behalf of 151 members/workmen, it was objected to by
the Management stating that the Union, being
unregistered one, cannot raise industrial dispute. In reply
thereto it was stated by the Union that it is well settled in
law who can raise industrial disputes and what is the
definition of industrial disputes and there is no bar for an
unregistered Union to raise an industrial dispute, when
its 151 active members were victimized and the Union was
pushed to the grave yard. It was also stated that 131 out
of 151 terminated/retrenched employees were in distress
and moving unemployed and they were not engaged for
any financial gain anywhere. Other 20 workmen, who
were forced to resign from service, were reengaged afresh
from the period they joined. Therefore, it was claimed that
these workmen are entitled to reinstatement in their
previous services with retrospective effect with all back
wages/salary and other benefits. Meanwhile, the Union
got registered bearing Registration No.829/CTC dated
12.08.2005 under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and Rules
framed therein. Therefore, it was prayed that the Tribunal
may answer the reference in favour of the workmen by
holding that the action of the Management-M/s. OSWAL
Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep in refusing
employment to Biswanath Choudhury and 49 others from
29.07.2004, Ajay Sahoo and 46 others from 03.08.2004
and Guru Charan Rout and 53 others from 07.08.2004 is
neither legal nor justified and may direct the Management
to reinstate these 151 workmen in their previous posts
with retrospective date and give all back wages, continuity
in service and other service benefits.
2.8. During pendency of the Industrial Dispute Case
No.4 of 2005, the Management sold their establishment to
the Executive Director, Indian Farmers Fertilizer
Cooperative Ltd (IFFCO), Orissa Unit, At-Musadia,
Paradeep, having its Head Office at 34, Nehru Palace, New
Delhi by way of restructuring in accordance with the
provisions of law. Therefore, the workmen impleaded the
principal employer, i.e., the Executive Director, IFFCO,
Musadia, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur as a necessary party to
the proceeding and also filed a petition for amendment of
the statement of claim, which was allowed, though the
same was objected to.
2.9. The Management-M/s. OSWAL Chemicals &
Fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep also filed written statement
raising objection with regard to locus standi of the Union
to represent the workmen contending that the workmen
have not authorized the Union to take up their cause
before the Tribunal and, as such, the Union is not
competent and has no authority to represent the
workmen. The Union, at no point of time, had any
activities in the establishment and never represented the
workers in the establishment. The Union was not legally
existed, when the alleged dispute arose. By its own
admission, it was registered on 12.08.2005. It was also
stated that none of the workmen had signed the statement
of claim and none of them authorized the Union to file the
claim. Therefore, no valid claim exists before the Tribunal.
The terms of reference made by the Government of Odisha
relates to refusal of employment to 151 employees by the
Management, as per the list appended to the order of
reference from different dates as indicated against each
name therein. It was further stated that the Management
never denied employment to those persons mentioned in
the schedule of reference, as alleged.
2.10. It was also stated that out of 151 workmen, who
are alleged to have been denied employment, 101
workmen submitted their resignations voluntarily and left
the services of the management. 18 workmen are still
continuing in the employment even after sale of the
establishment to M/s. IFFCO, 22 employees have been
absconding and their whereabouts are not known. Three
workmen, namely Ramroop Yadav, Ashok Parida and
Gurvind Singh were never employed and were not on the
rolls of the Company at any point of time. There is double
entry in respect of one workman, namely, Khageswar
Samal in the said statement of claim of the Union at Sl.
No.87 and 137. Rest six workmen were working with a
Contractor, i.e. M/s. D.K. Enterprises, who engaged for
certain miscellaneous jobs at the relevant point of time
and at no point of time, they were on the rolls of the
Management-M/s. OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.,
Paradeep.
2.11. It was also stated that out of 101 workmen, who
resigned on personal grounds from their services, 59
workmen collected their dues towards full and final
settlement of their accounts. 37 of resigned workmen did
not turn up to collect their dues after settlement of their
accounts. Remaining 5 workmen, after submitting their
resignations, did not turn up to settle their accounts.
Therefore, the allegations made by the Union that the
Management had refused employment to the workmen do
not hold good. Except for those workmen, who continued
to work with the Management and now continuing to work
with IFFCO, after the sale of the plant, w.e.f. 01.10.2005,
none of the workmen contained in the annexure to the
statement of claim ever approached the Management for
reemployment as long as the Management was owning the
plant at Paradeep, i.e. up to 30.09.2005. Therefore, the
refusal to employment, as alleged is not correct.
2.12. After the purchase, IFFCO was impleaded as a
party to the proceeding and then it filed a detailed written
statement on 02.11.2007. In response to same, rejoinder
affidavit was also filed by the workmen on 13.11.2007.
2.13. On the basis of pleadings available on record,
the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated
02.11.2007, framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether the reference is maintainable?
(2) Whether the action of the Management of M/S
OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Musadia,
Paradeep in refusing employment to Shri Biswanath
Choudhury and 49 others from 29.07.2004 (As per
list), Sri Ajay Sahoo and 46 others with effect from
03.08.2004 (as per list) and Sri Guru Charan Rout
and 53 others with effect from 07.08.2004 (as per
list) is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief they
are entitled to?"
2.14. To substantiate their contentions, the workmen
examined nine witnesses, including eight involved in the
dispute, and exhibited 27 documents and submitted other
necessary documents and papers in support of their
claim. Similarly, the Management filed two affidavits; one
by Manoj Rai, Manager, H.R. and the other by Lalit Paul,
Vice-President, and the workmen filed their objection to
the contentions of such affidavits on 10.12.2007. Since
the matter was pending and lingering, the
workmen/Union approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.2488 of 2007 for early disposal of I.D. Case No.4 of
2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and the
said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
25.07.2007 with a direction to the Industrial Tribunal to
dispose of the said I.D. Case by the end of that year. In
the said writ petition, both the Managements, i.e., M/s.
OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep and IFFCO
were the opposite parties no.1 & 2 respectively.
2.15. The Management of IFFCO had filed two writ
petitions, namely, W.P.(C) No.15203 of 2007 and W.P.(C)
No.15204 of 2007 before this Court against refusal order
dated 13.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 to engage an advocate
under Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and against
refusal of adjournment for some time to collect documents
respectively, wherein the Union was made opposite party
no.2 and the Management-M/s. OSWAL Chemicals &
Fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep as opposite party no.3. But, both
the writ petitions were disposed of on 04.04.2008 as
withdrawn and infructuous respectively.
2.16. The Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, vide
order dated 18.05.2009, while answering issue no.1 with
regard to ventilating the grievances at the instance of
Union, specifically held that the reference of the dispute is
maintainable and while answering issue no.2, the
Tribunal held that the workmen, namely, Ajay Kumar
Sahoo, Niranjan Thatoi, Alekh Kumar Das, Guru Charan
Rout, Basant Jena, Prafulla Kumar Barik, Himanshu
Ranjan Mohanty and Prafulla Biswal are entitled to
reinstatement in service under the Management of IFFCO
on the same terms and conditions of employment of other
workmen, who were absorbed by the Management of
IFFCO on its taking over of the factory from M/s. OSWAL
Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Paradeep. The Industrial
Tribunal further held that since nothing is there in the
evidence of the workmen that after their termination from
service they have not been gainfully employed elsewhere,
they are held not entitled to any back wages for the
period.
3. Challenging the above finding of the Industrial
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the Management approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 stating, inter alia,
that the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar failed to appreciate the documents available
on record and the evidence adduced by the parties in their
proper perspective and thus the impugned award is liable
to be set aside. Further the Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar has no power to change the terms
of reference and from the schedule of reference, it is
crystal clear that the dispute was between the
Management of M/s. OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.,
Paradeep and its workmen and, as such, the Management
of IFFCO had no earlier connection either directly or
indirectly with their workmen. As the IFFCO was not a
party to the dispute, it should not have been directed by
the Tribunal to reinstate 8 workmen by the impugned
award. Since there was error on the face of the record by
issuing direction to the Management to give employment
to 8 workmen, the award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law and,
therefore, the same should be quashed. It is further
contended that M/s. OSWAL Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.
was sold to IFFCO by virtue of an agreement dated
16.03.2006, Clause-11 whereof stipulates about the
employees employed by M/s. OSWAL Chemicals &
Fertilizers Ltd. Therefore, while passing the impugned
award, the Industrial Tribunal committed error in
granting relief of reinstatement to 8 workmen in the
employment of IFFCO, which is in complete disregard to
Clause-11.7 of the Sale Agreement, marked as Exhibit-A
to the award. In terms of Clause-11.5 of the Sale
Agreement, the IFFCO is liable to pay salary and other
emoluments relating to the employees after the period
from 01.10.2005. But, while passing the award, the
Industrial Tribunal has not taken into account Clause-
2.3.3 of the Sale Agreement. Thereby, the award so passed
cannot be said to be justified and is liable to be set aside.
4. Likewise, questioning the selfsame award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal the workmen filed
W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2009 contending that there was
uncontroverted evidence available on records in favour of
the workmen/Union that all the workmen have worked for
and completed 240 days preceding to the date of refusal of
their employment, but the Industrial Tribunal has failed
to appreciate the same and awarded reinstatement to only
8 workmen and concluded that all other workmen are not
entitled to any relief, which is contrary to the provisions of
law. It is further contended that the denial of back wages
to 8 workmen, who have been granted reinstatement is a
wrong application of mind on the materials available on
record. W.W.S Nos.1, 2 & 3 have categorically deposed
that the workmen are idle, moving unemployed and are
not gainfully employed elsewhere, but the observation of
the Industrial Tribunal "since nothing is there in the
evidence of the workmen that after their termination from
service they have not been gainfully employed elsewhere,
they are held not entitled to any back wages for the
period" is nothing but contrary to the evidence on record.
Therefore, it is contended that the award so passed by the
Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside or modified.
5. Pursuant to notice issued in both the writ
petitions, learned counsel for the Management appeared
and participated in the process of hearing. After hearing
learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed order on
12.08.2010 in W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2010, which reads as
follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Both the writ petitions having been arisen from one
order they are heard together and the following
common order is passed thereon.
The Petitioners in both the writ petitions challenge
the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.4 of 2005.
The reference made in the said case is:
"Whether the action of M/s OSWAL
chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Musadia,
Paradeep in refusing employment to Shri
Biswanath Choudhury and 49 others
with effect from 29.7.2004, Shri Aja
Sahuy and 46 others with effect from
8.8.2004 and Shri Guru Charan Rout &
53 others with effect from 7.8.2004 is
legal and/or justified,? If, not what relief
they are entitled to?
Altogether 151 workmen challenge the refusal of
their employment by OSWAL. M/s Indian Farmers
Fertilizer Co-operative Limited (hereinafter referred
as "M/s IFFCO"), is the petitioner in W.P.(C) no. 9842
of 2009 and opposite party in W.P.(C) No.16643 of
2009 They were directed by the Tribunal to reinstate
only 8 workmen that too without back wages. So, the
workmen through their Union filed W.P.(C) No. 16443
of 2009 for reinstatement of the remaining workmen
and for back wages of 8 workmen who were directed
to be reinstated. On the other hand, M/s IFFCO
challenges the said award on the ground that they
are not liable to give employment to any of the
aforesaid workmen.
Learned counsel appearing for M/s IFFCO
drew the attention of this Court to the middle of
paragraph -12 of the award passed by the Tribunal
which reads as follows:-
"The OSWAL being no more in existence and in the
meantime it has been taken over by the management
of M/s IFFCO organization". Learned counsel
appearing for M/s IFFCO submits that the M/s
IFFCO have taken the plea in their written statement
before the Tribunal that they are not liable for
providing employment to the aforesaid workmen, in
view of the sale agreement executed between them
and M/s OSWAL but no issue has been framed in
that regarg. SO, he prays to frame an issue in that
light and remand the matter back to the Industrial
Tribunal with a direction to decide that issue and
remit back the matter to this Court in a stipulated
period. Learned counsel appearing for the Union has
no objection to it.
The Industrial Tribunal ought have framed an issue
in the light of the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner, as it is essential for right decision of
the case, but it has not done so. So the following
issue is framed.
Issue
"Whether M/s. IFFCO is liable to give
employment to all the 151 workmen
(members of the petitioner's Union) ?
I.D. Case No.4 of 2005 is remanded back to the
Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with direction to
give its findings and reasons therefor on the
aforesaid issue, after giving opportunity to both the
parties to adduce additional evidence and return the
record to this Court with evidence adduce and its
findings within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of this order. Parties are directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 02.9.2010."
6. In compliance thereof, the Industrial Tribunal
considered the additional issue framed by this Court and
passed a detailed order on 16.12.2010. While passing the
said order, the Industrial Tribunal took note of clauses-
2.3.3 and 11 of the Sale Agreement and gave opportunity
to the parties for adducing evidence on the additional
issue framed. Consequentially, W.W. No.10 was examined
by the workmen and the Management of IFFCO examined
M.W.No.2 and exhibited one document as Ext.B. The
workmen claimed reinstatement of the disputant workmen
by application of the proviso to Section 25-FF of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. W.W. No.10 stated that the
transfer of ownership and management of the Unit having
taken over during pendency of I.D. Case No.04 of 2005,
the Management of IFFCO Ltd. is liable to comply with the
award. The Industrial Tribunal in its order dated
16.12.2010 took note of the judgment of the apex Court in
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v.
Workmen and another, 1974(29) FLR 56 (SC), wherein
reference was made to Anakapalla Co-operative
Agricultural and Industrial Society v. Workmen, AIR
1963 SC1469, so far as claim for compensation by the
workmen against a transferred undertaking is concerned.
The workmen of a transferred undertaking can
legitimately make their claim for compensation against
their employer unless the transfer satisfied the three
requirements of the proviso to Section 25-FF. The apex
Court held that if the three conditions specified in the
proviso are satisfied, there is no termination of service
either in fact or in law and if not the employees of the
transferred concern are entitled to claim compensation
against the transferor and they cannot make any claim for
reemployment against the transferee of the Undertaking,
and further observed that if the transfer does not fall
under the proviso to Section 25-FF, question of fair play or
social justice would not justify the claim by the workmen
that they ought to be reemployed by the transferee of the
Undertaking. Therefore, the prime duty of the Industrial
Tribunal is to consider whether the proviso is applicable to
the workmen or not. While answering the same, the
Industrial Tribunal came to a definite conclusion in
paragraph-7 of the order dated 16.12.2010, which reads
as follows:
"7. Admittedly, during the pendency of this I.D. Case
the purchaser took over the Unit w.e.f. 1.10.05. The
purchaser agreed to absorb all the employees of the
Vendor employed in the Undertaking who were
covered by the Act. A list of all the employees has
been annexed to the Sale Agreement. The list
contains names of all the employees including the
workmen, Officers and Trainees on the Roll as on
30.9.05. Since the names of the disputant workmen
are not there in the list the purchaser takes the plea
that it has no liability to absorb them. Their names
were not mentioned in the list as because their
services had been interrupted prior to 30.9.05. If the
disruption of their services which is under reference
is found to be illegal, then they are to be deemed to
be on the Roll of the Vendor as on 30.9.05. It is not
the case of the purchaser that at the time of the take-
over there was surplus man-power for which a
section of the workmen could not be retained by it. In
the Sale Agreement it is contemplated that so far the
Officers and Trainees on the Roll as on 30.9.05 are
concerned, the purchaser shall be entitled to select
such persons as it may in its sole discretion deem
appropriate to be absorbed. In spite of such
contemplation, it appears on record, the purchaser
absorbed all the 1292 employees of the Undertaking
including the Officers and Trainees whose names
were on the Roll as on 30.9.2005. Thus, it is found
that he purchaser absorbed all the employees of the
erstwhile Management without interruption in
service. It is not the case of the purchaser that
subsequent to the take over the Management has
retrenched any of its employees. It is also not the
case of the Vendor that services of the disputant
workmen were terminated on account of surplus
work-force. Therefore, a strong presumption is
available to the effect that if the disputant workmen
were on the Roll as on 30.9.2005 they would have
been absorbed by the purchaser without interruption
in service. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the
considered view that if the retrenchment of all or any
of the disputant workman is found to be illegal, the
purchaser will be liable to absorb them without
interruption in service."
7. In Paragraph-9 of the order dated 16.12.2010,
the Industrial Tribunal held as follows:-
"9. In view of the discussions made above, it is held
that all those disputant workmen whose
retrenchment is found to be illegal are deemed to be
the employees of the Undertaking as on 30.09.05.
There is no dispute that all the employees who were
on the Rolls as on 30.09.05 have been absorbed by
the purchaser without interruption in their services.
Therefore, those disputant workmen in whose favour
the reference is answered are deemed to be entitled
to be absorbed without interruption in service. That
way, the first condition in Clause-(a) of Section 25-FF
of the Act is found satisfied. As regards the other two
conditions, no discussion is required in as much as
neither of the first party-Management has taken any
plea that these conditions, so far the absorbed
employees are concerned, were not satisfied.
Therefore, this Tribunal concludes that all the
conditions in the proviso to Section 25-FF of the Act
are satisfied and the transferee has a liability to
absorb the disputant workmen whose retrenchment
is found to be illegal. The additional issue is
answered."
8. Taking into consideration the above finding of
the Industrial Tribunal, this Court passed order on
30.03.2022, which reads as follows:-
"xxxxx
3. The issue concerns the expression 'disputant
workmen'. Without categorically answering the issue
framed for the Tribunal to address by this Court viz.,
whether IFFCO is liable to give employment to all the
151 workmen, the Tribunal seems to have indirectly
restricted the relief to only eight workmen by
describing them 'disputant workmen'.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for 51 of such
Workmen as well as Mr. Singh, learned counsel for
another 51 Workmen make a grievance that their
clients are ready with additional evidence to be
adduced as proof of their employment with M/s.
OSWAL before it was taken over by IFFCO. Their
grievance is that no opportunity was given by the
Tribunal to them to place the said evidence before it.
5. With a view to obviating a further remand which
will delay the matter, the Court considers it
appropriate to direct as under:
(i) The Workmen who wish to be reinstated in service
and who have not crossed the age of superannuation
shall present themselves before the General
Manager, IFFCO at Paradip between 18th and 22nd
April 2022 with all relevant documents.
(ii) The General Manager will arrange to have those
documents checked and verified. It will be open to
the IFFCO if the documents are found to be in order
to either offer the Workmen, whose identity is
established, reinstatement or compensation in lieu of
reinstatement. This is without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of both the Workmen as well as
IFFCO. It is expected that at least some of the issues
that the Workmen might have, might get settled in
that process.
(iii) The written report of such proceedings be placed
before the Court on the next date."
9. In compliance of the order dated 30.03.2022,
some of the workmen approached the Management for
compliance of the observation made in sub-paragraphs (i)
& (ii) of paragraph-5 and taking note of the same, this
Court passed order on 21.06.2022, which reads as
follows:-
"1. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioners
states that 61 workmen had approached the
Management pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 30th March, 2022. According to him, of the
said 61 persons, around 15 persons had already
attained the age of superannuation. He has prepared
a chart for remaining 46 persons who have given
their particulars including the PF slips, pay slips,
appointment letter and so on. He needs some more
time to verify their PF details from the PF office.
2. Learned counsel for the Workmen, on the other
hand, insists that there are certain other persons
who are outside Odisha who could not reach in time
to appear before the Management on the dates
stipulated by this Court i.e. between 18th and 22nd
April, 2022. He states that he will file an affidavit
providing the details of such persons. If those details
are provided to Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the
Management, not later than 27th June, 2022 then
Mr. Sarangi will further verify those details along
with the details of the 46 persons and prepare a final
chart not later than 10th August, 2022."
10. This Court, on 15.12.2022, passed the following
order:-
"1. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears
on behalf of petitioners. He submits, impugned is
award dated 18th May, 2009 directing reinstatement
of workers, who had been appointed by the
transferor management. His clients are transferee
management. The transfer had clear term requiring
his clients to take over the management and existing
workers. Awardee workers are not and cannot be
called existing workers as their services were
terminated. Hence, impugned award directing
reinstatement stands challenged by his clients.
2. Mr. Palit, learned senior advocate appears on
behalf of the interveners. He submits, he represents
fifty-one workmen, who want to intervene in the writ
petition. This was recorded by the first Division
Bench in order dated 30th March, 2022. He submits,
his clients have also filed WP(C) no.16443 of 2009.
Said order dated 30th March, 2022 was made on
both writ petitions.
3. Mr. Palit submits further, controversy between
the parties was adjudicated and certain directions
made by said order dated 30th March, 2022. All that
remains is implementation of those directions. Hence,
contrary submissions being made before this Bench
should not be entertained. Mr. Mishra replies, eight
workmen were directed to be reinstated by impugned
award. Interveners have not had their applications
allowed, to have become parties in either writ
petition.
4. This Bench is prepared to proceed with
adjudication of both the writ petitions. However Mr.
Palit submits, only thing remaining is implementation
of the directions made on said order dated 30th
March, 2022. He reiterates, there has already been
adjudication of the writ petition, pursuant to which
those directions were made. He submits, the Bench
is available and in the circumstances, there be
direction for release of the writ petitions for his
clients to take steps for assignment before the first
Division Bench. In this context he draws attention to
subsequent orders dated 21st June, 2022 and 17th
August, 2022 also made by said Bench. He points
out, the management had obtained time to finalise
list of eligible workmen. On query from Court Mr.
Mishra submits, the list has not yet been finalized.
5. In view of submissions recorded above, we
release the writ petitions leaving Mr. Palit's clients to
take appropriate steps for special assignment."
11. In compliance of the order dated 30.03.2022,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management in
W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 provided information that in
respect of 56 workmen, the IFFCO is prepared to comply
with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 in a time bound manner. Accordingly,
this Court, on 16.01.2023, passed the following order:-
"1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
30th March, 2022 and further orders, the exercise of
verification of the details provided by the Petitioners-
workmen as well as the Intervener-workmen have
been undertaken by the Management, i.e., M/s.
IFFCO at Paradeep. Today in Court Mr. S.P. Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the IFFCO has
handed over a list containing names of fifty-six of
such workmen who are admittedly similarly placed
as the earlier terminated eight 'disputed workmen'.
2. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel informs the
Court that in respect of these fifty-six workmen, the
present Management of IFFCO is prepared to comply
with the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Act) in a time bound manner.
This submission was made in light of the chart
handed over by him today in Court indicating in a
separate column, the number of years of 'left over
service' in regard to each of the said fifty-six
workmen.
3. The Court, accordingly, directs that in respect of
the said fifty-six workmen in the list produced in
Court today, the Petitioners-IFFCO will comply with
the requirements of Section 25F of the Act within a
period of twelve weeks from today.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above
terms."
12. In view of the order dated 16.01.2023, this
Court directed the IFFCO to comply with the requirements
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within
a period of 12 weeks. Then, the matter was listed on
11.04.2023, on which date, this Court passed the
following order:-
"1. This is an application filed by Opposite Party
Nos.4 to 18 for modification of the order dated 16th
January, 2023.
2. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Petitioners has handed over a
complete list of 56 workmen, who according to him
have been paid the compensation amount in terms of
the order of this Court. On instructions, he states that
there is a repetition of the name of Shyam Sundar
Rout (Workman) both at Sl. No.43 and 52 in the said
list. However, he states that the said person and all
the others in the list have been paid the
compensation amounts by way of cheques that have
been dispatched to each of them individually by
Registered Post on 7th April, 2023.
3. Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the Applicants-Opposite Parties makes two
submissions. One, according to him, the
compensation should be paid in terms of Section
25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not
Section 25F as has been directed by this Court in its
order dated 16th January, 2023. Secondly, he states
that two more workmen i.e. Nadia Sethy, S/o. Bana
Bihari Sethy with Employee Identity Card Code
No.52737 and Mahendra Kumar Das, S/o. Niranjan
Das, Employee Identity Card Code No.53030 are not
found in the list handed over today in Court and their
cases are identical to the cases of others who have
been paid.
4. On both the above submissions, Mr. Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners states that
he will have the record verified and will revert on the
next date of hearing. The documents in regard to the
aforementioned two persons be handed over to Mr.
Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioners by
counsel for the workmen to enable Mr. Sarangi to
seek instructions.
5. List on 12th May 2023."
13. Thereafter, I.A No.4647 of 2023 and I.A.
No.6905 of 2023 were filed in W.P.(C) Nos.9842 of 2009
and I.A. No.6987 of 2023 was filed in W.P.(C) No.16443 of
2009 and this Court on 19.05.2023 passed the following
order:-
"I.A. Nos.4647 & 6905 of 2023 (arising out of
W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 AND I.A. No.6987 of
2023 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2009)
1. All these applications seek either a recall or
modification of the order dated 16th January, 2023
passed by this Court which recorded the statement
of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Petitioner-Management that compensation
would be paid to the workers in terms of Section 25 F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act'). The
contention now raised on behalf of the workmen is
that the compensation ought to have been under
Section 25 FF of the Act and not Section 25 F of the
Act.
2. It is claimed that the workmen were in service of
the employer as on 30th September, 2005 the date
on which the present Management, i.e., IFFCO took
over and, therefore, Section 25 FF of the Act would
apply.
3. Since this was the bone of contention between the
parties prior to the hearing on 16th January 2023,
this Court had in its order dated 30th March, 2022
put in place a mechanism to obviate the delay in their
getting relief. IFFCO was to undertake the exercise of
verification of the claims of the workmen. It is upon
the conclusion of this exercise that the order dated
16th January, 2023 came to be passed.
4. On the previous date of hearing of these
applications, i.e., 12th May, 2023 the Court was
informed that although cheques had been distributed
to each of the workmen by IFFCO in compliance with
the order dated 16th January 2023, those cheques
had not been encashed by the workmen and that
they would be prepared to return the un-encashed
cheques to M/s. IFFCO.
5. Today, the Applicants in I.A. No.4647 of 2023
have filed an affidavit enclosing a list of workmen
who are returning the un enchased cheques to the
Management. While there are 44 cheques, there is an
explanation offered in respect of the remaining 8
workmen (except one) whose cheques were not
encashed. Even in respect of one of them, i.e., Sri
Benudhar Paramanik, it is stated that he is prepared
to return the money that has been encashed within a
period of two weeks from today.
6. As regards the Applicants in I.A. No.6905 of 2023,
a separate memo has been filed returning 11
cheques issued to the Applicants therein. The original
cheques pertaining to the workmen in both
applications have handed over to Mr. S.P. Sarangi,
learned counsel appearing for the IFFCO and the
memos are retained on record.
7. In view of the above developments and without
expressing any view on the merits of the claims of
the workmen and leaving it to both IFFCO as well as
the workmen to urge all their pleas upon restoration
of the writ petitions, this Court recalls its order dated
16th January, 2023 and restores W.P.(C) No.9842 of
2009 and W.P.(C) No.16443 of 2009 to file.
8. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.16443 of
9. The point on which the present writ petitions are
set down for hearing is whether in respect of the
Petitioner workmen, the provisions of Section 25 F or
Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
would apply?
10. List for hearing on 23rd August, 2023."
14. This Court, vide order dated 19.05.2023,
restored W.P.(C) Nos.9842 of 2009 and 16443 of 2009 to
file and formulated the following question:-
"The point on which the present writ petitions are set
down for hearing is whether in respect of the
Petitioner workmen, the provisions of Section 25-F or
Section 25FF on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
would apply?"
15. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along
with Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the
Management contended that so far as 8 workmen are
concerned, they have been given employment and their
cases can be covered under Section 25-FF of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all other workmen are
to be covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Since those 8 workmen, in whose
favour award was passed, are continuing in service and
the benefit has also been extended to them, in their cases
the award having been implemented, in respect of the
workmen, whose services were terminated, they were
offered with cheques in compliance of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as directed by this Court in
earlier order. Out of 56 workmen, some of them have
received the benefit and some of them have not. Those
who have not received the benefit, the Management has
no objection to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, but question of compliance of Section
25-FF in respect of such workmen does not arise.
16. Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the
workmen, while refuting the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management,
contended that all 51 workmen, for whom the Union is
espousing the cause, are entitled to get the benefit of
Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Therefore, the question of compliance of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of rest 43
workmen does not arise. As such, the award so passed by
the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar should be modified
by extending the benefit to 51 workmen, whose cause is
espoused by the Union, by complying Section 25-FF of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is contended
that if the benefit has already extended to 8 persons, rest
43 workmen should be granted such benefit in compliance
of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
17. This Court heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel along with Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned
counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. S.P. Das,
learned counsel appearing for the workmen in hybrid
mode and perused the records. Pleadings have been
exchanged between the parties and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, both writ petitions are
being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
18. Before delving into the issues in question,
Sections 25F and 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 are extracted hereunder for just and proper
adjudication of the case:-
"25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.--No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under an employer shall be retrenched by
that employer until--
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice
in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,
wages for the period of the notice;
[x x x]
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay [for every
completed year of continuous service] or any part
thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as
may be specified by the appropriate Government
by notification in the Official Gazette]
25-FF. Compensation to workmen in case of
transfer of undertakings.--Where the ownership
or management of an undertaking is transferred,
whether by agreement or by operation of law, from
the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new
employer, every workman who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year in that
undertaking immediately before such transfer shall
be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance
with the provisions of section 25F, as if the workman
had been retrenched:
Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to a workman in any case where there has
been a change of employers by reason of the
transfer, if--
(a) the service of the workman has not been
interrupted by such transfer;
(b) the terms and conditions of service applicable to
the workman after such transfer are not in any way
less favourable to the workman than those
applicable to him immediately before the transfer;
and
(c) the new employer is, under the terms of such
transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the
workman, in the event of his retrenchment,
compensation on the basis that his service has been
continuous and has not been interrupted by the
transfer."
19. On perusal of the above mentioned provisions,
it is made clear that both the provisions are being used in
two different ways and for two different purposes. Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was enacted
realizing the position that an employer could not be
expected to carry the economic dead weight of surplusage
of labour, the Legislature provided for the compensation
under this section to soften the rigour of hardship
resulting from an employee being thrown out of
employment through no fault of his.
20. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Workmen,
(1973) Lab.I.C. 461 (SC), the apex Court held that in
enacting Section 25-F, the Legislature has also
standardized the payment of compensation to workmen,
"retrenched in normal or ordinary sense in an existing or
continuous industry".
21. In Hariprasad Shivashankar Shukla v. A.D.
Divikar, AIR 1957 SC 121, the apex Court held that
before the enactment of the provision under Section 25-F,
the Tribunals had to deal with a perplexing variety of
factors for determining appropriate relief and, by and
large, adopted a simple yardstick of length of service of the
retrenched workmen.
22. In Associated Cement Companies (Chaibasa
Cement Works, Jhinkapani) v. Their Workmen, (1960)
1 L.L.J. 1 (SC), the apex Court held that the right created
by Section 25-F is based on grounds of humane public
policy and on the consideration that involuntary
unemployment causes dislocation of trade and industry
and may result in general economic insecurity.
23. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha, (1960) 1 L.L.J. 251(SC), the apex Court held that
non-compliance of the mandatory conditions of Section
25-F would render the impugned retrenchment invalid and
inoperative.
Similar view has also been taken by the apex
Court in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of
West Bengal, (1967) II L.L.J. 23 (SC).
24. In Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Their Workmen,
(1960) 1 L.L.J. 504 (SC), the apex Court held that where
the retrenchment is found to be illegal and invalid for
noncompliance of the mandatory requirements of Section
25-F, it is imperative for the Tribunal to award the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages and it has no
discretion to award any other relief.
25. The original Chapter V-A as inserted by the
Industrial Disputes (Amendment Act), 1953, did not
contain Section 25-FF. The Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 1957 inserted Section 25-FF. This
Section was enacted as it was not clear from Section 25-F
whether the transfer, reconstitution and amalgamation of
companies would be a ground for claim for retrenchment
compensation even if the service of the workman is
continued without interruption and the terms and
conditions of his service remain unaltered. This Section,
therefore, was substituted by present Section 25-FF along
with Section 25-FFF by the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 1957. This amendment was
necessitated by the Supreme Court's decision in the case
of Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla (supra) and also in
Barsi Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. K.N. Jogelkar, (1957) 1
L.L.J. 243 (SC), in which it was held that no retrenchment
compensation under Section 25-F was payable, on the
construction of the term 'retrenchment' in Section 2(oo) to
workmen whose services were terminated by an employer
on a real and bona fide closure of business or when the
termination of service occurred as a result of transfer of
ownership from one employer to another. In the case of
transfer of an undertaking, if the workman is re-employed
on terms and conditions which are not less favourable to
him, he will not be entitled to compensation. Therefore,
Section 25-FF entitles a workman to notice or wages in
lieu of notice and compensation in case of transfer of the
ownership or management of an undertaking from one
employer to another, as has been held by the apex Court
in R.S. Madho Ram & Sons (Agencies) (P.) Ltd. v. Its
Workmen, (1964) 1 L.L.J. 366 (SC). The compensation
payable under this provision is determinable in
accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F, "as if the
workmen had been retrenched". But before a workman is
entitled to compensation under this Section, the following
conditions must be cumulatively satisfied:
"(1) There should be a transfer of the ownership of
management of the undertaking from one employer to
another by (a) agreement, or (b) operation of law;
(2) the undertaking should be an industry within the
meaning of S.2(j);
(3) the workman claiming compensation should be a
workman within the meaning of S.2(s); and
(4) the workman should have put in minimum one
year of continuous service within the meaning of S.
25-B immediately before the transfer of the
ownership or management of the undertaking."
26. Taking into account the above mentioned
conditions of Sections-25-F and 25-FF of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the purpose for which they have
been enacted and applying the same to the present
context, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the
Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to
compliance of Section 25-FF, so far as transfer of the
Management is concerned, as that was not the dispute at
the initial stage because the dispute was raised with the
Management of M/s. OSWAL Chemicals and Fertilizers
Limited, for which reference was made. When the matter
was pending before the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication, at that point of time transfer of Management
took place and in that case, Section 25-FF may apply. In
any case, looking at the various orders passed by this
Court, as mentioned above, it has come to fore that 56
employees, as per the list furnished by the Management,
were retrenched and they are entitled to get compensation
as per Section 25-F and this Court directed the
Management to comply with the same, pursuant to which
some employees have received compensation and some
have not, that itself can be considered by the Management
for payment to the workmen. Now, coming to the question
of compliance of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the award is very clear so far as 8 employees
are concerned and their names have been indicated in the
award itself.
27. As already indicated, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Management contended
that in respect of 8 employees, Section 25-FF of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has already been complied
with.
28. In view of such position, the award so passed by
the Tribunal has already been implemented in respect of 8
employees in terms of Section 25-FF. So far as rest of the
workmen are concerned, since 56 workmen have been
treated as retrenched employees, for them Section 25-F
has been complied with and some of them have received
compensation and some have not received the benefits
even if cheques were offered to them.
29. In the above view of the matter, it is directed
that if the workmen, those are entitled to get the benefit in
compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, have not yet received the same, they may receive
their benefit and the Management will cooperate to
disburse them the compensation amount, as they are not
entitled to get the benefit of Section 25-FF.
30. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.9842 of 2009 filed by
the Management stands allowed and W.P.(C) No.16443 of
2009 filed by the workmen stands dismissed. However,
under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
..............................
DR. B.R.SARANGI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
..............................
M.S. RAMAN,
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Digitally Signed The 18th October, 2023, Alok
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: orissa high court
Date: 18-Oct-2023 18:35:38
