Orissa High Court
Orissa State Road Transport vs Prasanta Kumar Kanungo & on 15 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 14264 of 2015
Orissa State Road Transport ..... Petitioner
Corporation , Bhubaneswar Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate
Vs.
Prasanta Kumar Kanungo & ..... Opposite Parties
Anr. Mr. R. Acharya, Advocate,
(O.P.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
15.09.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
13 2. Heard Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
management-petitioner and Mr. R. Acharya, learned counsel
appearing for the workman-opposite party no.1.
3. Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
management-petitioner contended that though on the previous
occasion he had raised question of delay and laches on the part of the
workman-opposite party no.1 as well as the Government in making a
reference and sought time to examine the same, he did not find any
judgment in favour of the management-petitioner. Therefore, he does
not want to press such contention and want to proceed with the matter
on the basis of other questions of law involved in this case.
4. The management-petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
to quash the award dated 29.11.2014 passed in I.D. Case No.38 of
2013, by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
has held that the termination of service of workman-opposite party
no.1 by way of refusal of employment with effect 29.02.1994 by the
management-petitioner is not legal nor justified and the workman-
opposite party no.1 is entitled for reinstatement in service with 50%
of back wages along with all service benefits and further directed the
management-petitioner to execute the award within one month of
publication of the award in the official gazette failing which the
management-petitioner is liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum on
the money due to the workman-opposite party no.1.
5. Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the
management-petitioner contended that the award so passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.38 of
2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, as such, since the
workman-opposite party no.1 was working as Contingent Menial, is
not entitled to get reinstatement in service. Thereby, the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar has committed error apparent on
the face of the records. It is contended that the workman-opposite
party no.1 may be entitled to get a monetary compensation in lump
sum in view of ratio decided by the apex Court in Incharge officer
and anr. v. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126.
6. Mr. R. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the workman-
opposite party no.1 vehemently contended that the management-
petitioner has challenged the award dated 29.11.2014 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar before this Court by
filing this writ petition and while entertaining this writ petition, this
Court directed the management-petitioner to comply with Section 17-
B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, as such, the same is being
complied with. In any case, when no interim order was passed by this
Court, the workman-opposite party no.1 approached the Industrial
Forum by filing I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 for execution of the
award dated 29.11.2014 passed in I.D. Case No.38 of 2013 and the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated
04.04.2016 disposed of the said case with a direction to the
management-petitioner to pay the workman-opposite party no.1 50%
of the wages from his date of termination, i.e., 29.02.1994 till
29.02.2014 along with 15% interest thereon and full wages of
Rs.750/- per month along with interest @ 15% thereon from
30.02.2014 till reinstatement. It is contended that the said order dated
04.04.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 has not been
challenged by the management-petitioner. It is further contended that
the management-petitioner on one hand filed this writ petition
challenging the award passed by the Labour Court and on the other
hand, it participated in the proceeding of I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of
2015 before the very same forum and on contest the order has been
passed on 04.04.2016. Therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated
in this writ petition and, as such, the management-petitioner has to
comply with the order dated 04.04.2016 passed in I.D. Misc. Case
No.48 of 2015.
7. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the
management-petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
award dated 29.11.2014 passed in I.D. Case No.38 of 2013. When the
matter is sub-judiced before this Court and no interim order of stay
operation of the said award was passed, the workman-opposite party
no.1 filed I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 before the Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar for implementation of the said award. The very same
management-petitioner, who has filed this writ petition, participated
in the proceeding of I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 before the Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar. At no point of time, the management-petitioner
has brought to the notice of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar that the
award has been challenged before this Court, rather unequivocally, it
participated in the said proceeding. Finally, the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 04.04.2016 disposed of
I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 directing the management-petitioner
to pay the workman-opposite party no.1 50% of the wages from his
date of termination, i.e., 29.02.1994 till 29.02.2014 along with 15%
interest thereon and full wages of Rs.750/- per month along with
interest @ 15% thereon from 30.02.2014 till reinstatement. As such,
the said order has not been complied with till date.
8. The contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the
management-petitioner that the workman-opposite party no.1 was
continuing as Contingent Menial and, as such, he is not entitled for
reinstatement in service, in view of law laid down by the apex Court
in Incharge Officer (supra), that question has now become academic
in view of the fact that the very same management-petitioner
participated in the proceeding of I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015,
disposed of on 04.04.2016 and the said order has not been challenged
before any other forum. Consequentially, the said order dated
04.04.2016 has reached its finality.
8. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Accordingly,
this Court directs the management-petitioner to comply with the order
dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.48 of 2015 forthwith.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified (M.S. RAMAN)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY JUDGE
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa HighAlok
Court
Date: 15-Sep-2023 17:09:02
