Orissa High Court
Branch Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 24 June, 2024
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4420 of 2018
Branch Manager, Koraput ..... Petitioner
Panchabati, Gramya Bank, Now
Utkal Grameen Bank, Kujendri
Branch
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
The Presiding Officer, Central ..... Opposite Parties
Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
and another
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
24.06.2024
Order No.
12. 1. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner-management/bank. He submits, impugned is order dated
10th October, 2017 made by the Labour Court under section 33-C(2)
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to him, there was no
computation made of the back wages.
2. On query made he submits, entitlement to back wages of the
deceased-workman is not disputed. The period is also not disputed.
The period is from 20th August, 1986 (date of termination) till 28th
February, 2012 (reinstatement).
3. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of legal
representatives of the deceased-workman. He hands up date chart and
notes of submission on behalf of his client. In it is attached copy of
judgment dated 28th August, 2023 of the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal no.5730 of 2023 (Phool Mohammad v. Executive Engineer,
Electricity Urban Distribution and another). Relying on the
judgment he submits, the Supreme Court declared the clear legal
position to be that High Courts should not interfere with order of the
Labour Court, which merely calculates amounts due and
consequential directions.
4. On query made Mr. Rath relies on paragraphs-6 and 8 to 10
in impugned order and submits, no interference is warranted.
5. Perused impugned order. To us, it appears the deceased
workman could not adduce evidence in respect of notified
minimum wages as on 20th August, 1986. Hence, the Labour Court
found as fact that on date of termination the deceased workman was
getting ultimately enhanced pay of ₹300/- per month. To us it
appears, petitioner has invoked our jurisdiction to seek clarification
because direction by impugned order is for the management to have
calculated. Before us the legal representatives have supported
impugned order.
6. Notwithstanding aforesaid we made query of Mr. Rath
whether we should direct restoration, on setting aside impugned
order on observing that the legal representatives may not be able to
find evidence to adduce, which could not be adduced by the
deceased workman himself. In the circumstances we direct
petitioner to calculate back wages for the period 20th August 1986
to 28th February, 2012 at the rate of ₹300/- per month. 50% of the
aggregate, in terms of order dated 28th February, 2012 in W.P.(C)
no.13357 of 2008 be paid to the legal representatives (substituted
opposite parties). Fifty percent of the aggregate is the principal sum.
Petitioner must also pay interest thereon at directed rate of 9%
simple interest per annum calculated on and from 29th February,
2012 till 30th June 2024, provided the principal and interest are paid
by then. In event it is not paid, aforesaid principal sum will carry
the directed interest upto 30th June, 2024 and the principal and till
then accrued interest will be taken together for further interest to be
paid thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, for period commencing
1st July, 2024 till date of payment.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Radha/Jyostna
