Orissa High Court
Kanhu Charan Sahoo vs The Presiding Officer on 9 October, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) Nos.14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020
(Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
WP(C) No.14178 of 2020
Kanhu Charan Sahoo .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar
2. The Registrar,
Utkal University, .... Opposite Parties
Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sourya Sundar Das,
Senior Advocate
Assisted by:
Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party No.1)
Mr. Guru Prasad Mohanty,
Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.2)
WP(C) No.5059 of 2020
The Utkal University, .... Petitioner
Represented by the Registrar,
Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar
-Versus-
1. The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar
Page 1 of 13
2. Kanhu Charan Sahu
3. The Govt. of Odisha,
Labour and ESI Department,
represented by the Secretary, .... Opposite Parties
Bhubaneswar.
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Guru Prasad Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3)
Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior
Advocate
Assisted by:
Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.2)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 09.10.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench:
1. Perused the Mediation Report dated 17th September,
2025 at Flag-B. Learned Mediator submitted a failure report.
Hence, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is taken up on merit.
2. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the
award dated 30th October, 2019 passed by learned Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity,
'learned Tribunal') in ID Case No.22 of 2017. Hence, both the
writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. WP(C)
No.14178 of 2020 has been filed by the Workman- Sri Kahnu
Charan Sahoo, whereas WP(C) No. 5059 of 2020 has been
filed by the Management of Utkal University assailing the
selfsame award. For convenience of discussion, parties are
described as per their status before learned Tribunal.
3. Short narration of facts necessary for proper
adjudication of the case is that the Workman, namely,
KanhuCharanSahoo was engaged under the Management of
Utkal University on daily wage basis. He was engaged on 11 th
March, 1987 with a direction to work at Hostel No.3 w.e.f. 5th
November, 1987. It is alleged by the Management that the
Workman abandoned his job w.e.f. 9th January, 1991. On the
other hand, the Workman alleged that he was terminated from
service w.e.f. 9th January, 1991 without complying with the
mandatory provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (For brevity, 'the Act'). In the year 2017,
the Workman moved the labour machinery for redressal of his
grievances. A conciliation proceeding was initiated and a
failure report was ultimately submitted to the appropriate
Government by the Conciliation Officer. Accordingly, the
industrial dispute was referred to learned Tribunal for
adjudication to answer the following reference.
"Whether the action of the Management of Utkal
University, At/P.O. VaniVihar, Bhubaneswar in
terminating the services of the workman Sri
KanhuCharanSahoo by way of refusal of employment
w.e.f. 09.01.1991 is legal and/or justified? If not, what
relief he is entitled to?"
4. The Workman filed his statement of claim narrating the
fact that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the
Management vide order dated 11th March, 1987 with a direction
to work at Hostel No. 3 w.e.f. 5th November, 1987. It was also
stated therein that the Workman rendered continuous services
under the Management being posted at different places as per
different orders issued by the Management. His name was
placed at Serial No.114 of the Gradation List of Class-IV
employees, which was prepared on the basis of seniority for the
purpose of regularization of employees against available
vacancies as and when arose. When the Workman was so
continuing, the Management without assigning any reason
restrained him (the Workman) to perform his duty w.e.f. 9th
January, 1991 which occasioned termination of his services.
Before termination the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of
the Act was not followed. Hence, he prayed for reinstatement
with full back wages.
5. The Management filed its written statement stating that
the claim of the Workman was not maintainable as the
Management had no role to play in the matter of employment
or non-employment of the Workman. The Workman was
working under the control and supervision of the Security
Officer, who was working under the Management on being
deputed from the Government of Odisha. No office order was
issued to the Workman by the Management either appointing
him as a DLR or terminating his services as claimed by him. It
was also specifically stated in the written statement that the
Workman having left the work at his own volition on 9th
January, 1991 without any intimation to the controlling officer,
the question of complying with the provision of Section 25-F of
the Act did not arise at all. It was also stated that although the
name of the Workman was at Serial No.114 of the List
prepared by the Management as per seniority, but as he
remained unauthorisedly absent from duty, the question of his
regularization could not also be considered. Thus, the
Management contended that the Workman was not entitled to
any relief as claimed.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties,
learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues as under.
" (i) Whether the case is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the second party workman voluntarily
abandoned the service since 09.01.1991?
(iii) Whether the action of the Management of Utkal
University, At/P.O. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar in
terminating the services of the workman Sri
Kanhu Charan Sahoo by way of refusal of
employment w.e.f. 09.01.1991 is legal and/or
justified?
(iv) If not, what relief, Sri Sahoo is entitled to?"
6.1 In support of his case, the Workman examined himself
as W.W.1. and placed reliance on the copies of the documents
such as, Office Order dated 3rd November, 1987 (Ext.1), Office
Order dated 2nd January, 1988 (Ext.2), Office Order dated 11th
May, 1989 (Ext.3), Office Order dated 27th October, 1990
(Ext.4), list of daily wage employees as per seniority (Ext.5)
and information obtained by him under the RTI Act (Ext.6). On
behalf of the Management, the Registrar of Utkal University
was examined as M.W.1, who proved the copy of the Orissa
Universities Recruitment and Promotion of Non-Teaching
Employees Rules, 1991 as Ext. A.
7. Considering the rival cases of the parties and evidence
on record, learned Tribunal held that the dispute is
maintainable. It was further held that it is not a case of
abandonment of service by the Workman. Rather, it is a case of
refusal of employmentto the second party-Workman which
amounts to retrenchment, as defined under Section 2(oo) of the
Act. It was also held that since provision under Section 25-F of
the Act was not followed, the termination was neither legal nor
justified. However, answering the Issue No.4, learned Tribunal
held that the Workman is entitled to ₹50,000/- towards
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Assailing the said award, the present writ petitions have been
filed.
8. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Workman vehemently argued that since the Workman has
already attained the age of superannuation, question of his
reinstatement does not arise at present. Relying upon the case
of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-
Processing Service Society Limited and another; (1999) 6
SCC 82, Mr. Das learned Senior Advocated submitted that the
Workman is entitled to 60% of the back wages till the date of
the award and full back wages till his reinstatement. Since the
Workman has already attained the age of superannuation and
question of his reinstatement does not arise at present, he is
entitled to full back wages till today. Relying upon the case of
Ajaib Singh (supra), he further submitted that the provision of
Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the proceedings under
the Act as held therein. In the case of Ajaib Singh (supra)
Hon'ble the Supreme Court discussing the scope of the Act at
paragraph-5 and applicability of the Limitation Act to the
proceedings under the Act (Industrial Dispute Act, 1947) and
discussing the case law in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopal
Bhiva; AIR 1964 SC 752; Sakuru v. Tanaji; (1985) 3 SCC 590
and Jai Bhagwan v. Ambala Central Coop. Bank Ltd.; (1983)
4 SCC 611, held that the provisions of Article 137 of the
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable in the
proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be
denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. He,
therefore, prays for modification of the impugned award to the
aforesaid extent.
9. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the Management that the reference was hopelessly
barred by limitation. The Workman abandoned his job with
effect from 9th September, 1991 and he approached the
Conciliation Officer in the year 2017, i.e., after 26 years. Delay
in approaching the Conciliation Officer has not been explained.
Thus, the reference was not maintainable at all. This vital
aspect was not properly considered by learned Tribunal. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned award is not sustainable
in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Perused the case records and materials placed before us.
Before delving into the merit of the case, it is worthwhile to
mention here that on consent of learned counsel for the parties,
this Court referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of the
High Court of Orissa to make an endeavour for mediation. But,
learned Mediator submitted a failure report dated 17th
September, 2025.
12. An objection was raised by Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the Management to the effect that the workman was
never engaged by the University. He was engaged by the
Security Officer, who was working under the Management
being deputed by the State Government. Thus, question of
employment and/or disengagement by the Management does
not arise.
13. Such submission is not acceptable, inasmuch as learned
Tribunal scrutinizing the evidence on record came to a
categorical conclusion that the Workman was engaged by the
Management of Utkal University on daily wage basis. It also
appears from the Ext.5 prepared by the Management, the Utkal
University that the Workman was at Serial No.114. Such list of
DLRs was prepared by the Management on the basis of
seniority as per their date of joining on daily wage basis for
regularization in the available vacancies as and when it arose.
Thus, it cannot be said that the Workman was not engaged by
the Management-Utkal University. In view of the ratio of
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa;
AIR 1978 SC 548, Utkal University can no doubt be termed as
an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, so far
as the present case is concerned. It is not seriously disputed that
the Workman was engaged on daily wage basis. Since the
Workman was working under daily wage basis, he comes
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Thus, the
provisions of the Act are applicable to the instant case. On
analysis of evidence on record, learned Tribunal categorically
held that the retrenchment of the Workman squarely comes
under the definition of 'termination' under Section 2(oo) of the
Act.
14. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Management of
course, seriously objected to the findings recorded by learned
Tribunal in the impugned award and submitted that learned
Tribunal has erred in fact in coming to such a conclusion.
15. A finding of fact based on assessment of evidence
cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power
under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is also well settled in
the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others;
AIR 1964 SC 477, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid
down the principles of interference with an award by the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held as under;
7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of
High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art.
226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the
true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A
writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of
jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or Tribunals;
these are cases where orders are passed by inferior
courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it,
or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ
can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or
improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without
giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by
the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing
with the dispute is opposed
to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no
doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is
a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is
not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation
necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation
of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the
face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an
error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In
regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a
writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in
recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously
refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or
had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which
has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be
regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a
writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases,
however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in
proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that
the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the
impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of
evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be
drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot
be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits
that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed
Ahmed Ishaque ), Nagendra Nath Bora v. The
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,
Assam ([1958] S.C.R. 1240.), and Kaushalya Devi v.
Bachittar Singh."
15.1. Relying upon Syed Yakoob (supra) this Court in the
case of The Scientist in-charge, Regional Museum of Natural
History v. Sri Gangadhar Das [WP(C) No.22599 of 2017,
disposed of on 28th January, 2020] held as under;
"Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles
of law, this Court is of the opinion that the factual aspects
of the case cannot be considered in a proceeding involving
writ of certiorari.
In the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander
Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675, the same matter was
also considered. Though we are aware that the ratio as far
as maintainability of writ application against the order
passed by the Civil Court is overruled by later decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam
and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC
423, the distinction between the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution
is approved by the said later decision. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Ram Chander Rai and
Others (supra) has very categorically held that Certiorari,
under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for
correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a
subordinate court is found to have acted
(i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where
there exists none, or
(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction- by overstepping or crossing
the limits of jurisdiction, or
(iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of
procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural
justice where there is no procedure specified, and
thereby occasioning failure of justice."
16. Since on an assessment of evidence on record learned
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that dispensing with services
of the Workman comes under the provision under Section 2(oo)
of the Act. It has also been held by learned Tribunal on
assessment of evidence that the Workman had never abandoned
his services as alleged by the Management, but was terminated
by the Management. In view of the ratio in the aforesaid case
laws, this Court is not competent to record a finding by re-
appreciation of evidence on record.
16.1. In view of the above, the contention of Mr. Mohanty,
learned counsel for the Management is not acceptable.
17. Admittedly, provision under Section 25-F of the Act
was not complied with while dispensing with the services of the
Workman. Thus, the termination of the Workman was neither
legal nor justified as rightly held by learned Tribunal.
Ordinarily the Workman would have been entitled to
reinstatement with full back wages, when his termination was
held to be neither legal nor justified, but in the facts and
circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal awarded a meager
amount of ₹50,000/- only to the Workman in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages.
18. Apparently, there is no material on record with regard
to the wages being paid to the Workman during his continuance
with the Management. However, taking into consideration the
minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Odisha at the
relevant time and the period of service the Workman rendered
to the Management, this Court feels that a total sum of
₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) towards a lump sum
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages will
serve the interest of justice. Thus, the Management is directed
to pay the same to the Workman within a period of eight weeks
from today with proper acknowledgement. If the compensation
is not paid within the time stipulated, it will carry 6% interest
per annum, which shall be calculated from the date of this
judgment till the date of payment.
19. The impugned award dated 30th October, 2019 passed
by learned Tribunal in ID Case No. 22 of 2017 is modified to
the aforesaid extent.
20. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(SavitriRatho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated, the 9th October, 2025/RKS
