[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dharanidhar Khuntia vs Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO.339 OF 2009
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Dharanidhar Khuntia ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
2. Managing Director, M/s. Utkal Refinery Limited,
Jagatpur, Cuttack
....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Bamadev Baral, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dah,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 20.01.2026
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the part of the
Award dated 14th February, 2007 (Annexure-1) passed by learned
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial
Dispute Case No.26 of 1999, refusing the back wages in favour of
the Petitioner while directing his reinstatement.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner-
Workman was serving as a driver under the Management-Opposite
Party No.2. He rendered unblemished service to the Management
from 1995 till 3rd August, 1997, when he was denied entry into the
premises of the Opposite Party No.2-Management without
assigning any reason. When the request of the Petitioner to allow
him to discharge his duty did not render any result, the Petitioner
raised the industrial dispute. On failure of conciliation, the matter
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity
'learned Tribunal') for adjudication of the following reference:
"Whether the termination of service of Sri Dharanidhar
Khuntia, Driver by the Managing Director M/ s. Utkal
Refinery Ltd,| Jagatpur w.e.f. 04.08.97 is legal and/justified ?
If not, what relief Sri Khuntia is entitled ?"
4. On receipt of notice, the Workman-Petitioner so also First
Party-Management (Opposite Party No.2) filed their respective
statement of claims and written statement. The Petitioner, who is
the second party-Workman, in his statement of claim stated that he
joined as a driver under the Management on 20th March, 1995. He
discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his Authority till
the year 1997. It was his stand that on 4th August, 1997, when he
went to join his duty as usual, he was not allowed entry into the
factory premises of the Management by the security personnel.
On query, he came to know that the Managing Director of the
Company instructed not to allow entry of the Petitioner to the
factory premises. It was also stated that finding no way out, the
Petitioner-Workman raised an industrial dispute before the District
Labour Officer, Cuttack alleging termination of his service w.e.f.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
4th August, 1997. Accordingly, conciliation was taken up. Before
the Conciliation Officer, Cuttack, the Management took a stand of
unauthorized absence of the Petitioner from duty w.e.f. 4th August,
1997. Subsequently, a charge sheet was communicated to the
Petitioner vide Letter dated 20th September, 1997, followed by a
domestic enquiry. While admitting to have participated in the
enquiry, the Petitioner-Workman stated that the enquiry so
conducted against him without following the principles of natural
justice. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to defend him
in the enquiry. The domestic enquiry was concluded without his
knowledge. Thus, the enquiry so conducted was unfair and
perfunctory. It was further contended in the statement of claim that
the action of the Management amounted to termination of his
service w.e.f., 4th August, 1997, which was illegal and unjustified.
As the conciliation was not successful, a failure report was
submitted to the appropriate Government and the matter was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as per the
aforesaid terms.
5. The Opposite Party No.2-Management in its written
statement, disputing the claim of the Petitioner-Workman, stated
that the second party-Workman initially participated in the
domestic enquiry. But, because of his deliberate non-cooperation
and rowdy behaviour, enquiry could not be concluded. It was also
stated in the written statement that the Management never
terminated the service of the second party-Workman. Vide Letter
dated 11th November, 2000, the Petitioner-Workman was asked to
join his services. It was also contended that since there was no
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
termination of service of the Workman, the reference itself was
unjust and not maintainable.
6. Although, the Petitioner-Workman adduced evidence in
support of his case, but, the Management did not turn up to adduce
evidence. Basing upon the pleadings of the parties, learned
Tribunal framed issues in terms of the reference made by the
appropriate Government. Learned Tribunal, holding that no
rebuttal evidence to disprove the claim of the Petitioner-Workman
was adduced, directed for reinstatement, but refused to grant him
back wages. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the
Award is reproduced hereunder:
"6. In his affidavit, evidence of the second party workman
has stated that he worked as a Driver with the first party
management from 1995 till August, 1997 with utmost sincerity
and to the best satisfaction of the management, but without
any reason or he was denied entry into the factory premises
w.e.f. 4.8.97, which according to him amounts to termination
of his service. While admitting that subsequent to his refusal
of employment the management wrote a letter to him for
joining the work, he has stated that when he went to the
factory, again the security guard did not allow his entry. His
aforesaid evidence on record remained unassailed due to
non-participation of the management at the hearing stage.
Had the management took steps and proved the misconduct, if
any of the workman, the matter would have been otherwise. In
absence of any rebuttal evidence therefore, I am constrained
to hold that the refusal of employment to the second party
workman w.e.f. 4.8.97 amounts to termination of his services
and accordingly it is ordered that he be taken back to
employment forthwith without any back wages."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Inspite of valid service of notice on the Management-
Opposite Party No.2, none appears on its behalf.
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
8. Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Workman
reiterating the stand of the Petitioner-Workman before learned
Tribunal, submits that initially the Petitioner was not allowed entry
to the factory premises on 4th August, 1997. Subsequently, a
domestic enquiry was initiated against him. But, the result, if any,
of the domestic enquiry was never communicated to the Petitioner.
It is also submitted by Mr. Baral, learned Counsel that when the
reference was pending before learned Tribunal for adjudication, the
Petitioner was issued with a letter dated 11th November, 2000 to
join his duties. In response to the said letter, the Petitioner went to
join his duties. But, he was denied entry of the factory premises as
before. Thus, the refusal of the Management to enter into the
factory premises and join his duties amounted to termination.
Considering the same, learned Tribunal directed for reinstatement
of the Petitioner in service.
9. It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that when he (the Petitioner) was unlawfully restrained to
join his duties, he should have been paid full back wages. He
further submitted that the Petitioner-Workman has not yet been
reinstated in spite of direction of learned Tribunal. He, therefore,
prays for modification of the impugned Award under Annexure-1
and direct the Management-Opposite Party No.2 to make payment
of full back wages.
10. Taking note of the submissions made by learned Counsel for
the Petitioner and on perusal of record, more particularly, the
Award under Annexure-1, it is apparent that the Management-
Opposite Party No.2, though filed its written statement, neither
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
adduced any evidence nor participated in the hearing before learned
Tribunal. Thus, it is rightly held by learned Tribunal that the case
of the Petitioner-Workman went unrebutted. Taking into
consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced
by the Petitioner-Workman, learned Tribunal, though directed the
Management to reinstate him in service, but no back wages was
awarded in favour of the Petitioner.
8. On perusal of the materials on record and the observations
made by learned Tribunal, it appears that the Petitioner was denied
entry into the factory premises. Further, a domestic enquiry was
initiated against the Petitioner-Workman alleging his unauthorized
absent. But, it is the specific case of the Management before
learned Tribunal that domestic enquiry could not be concluded. It
is also the case of the Management that when the reference was
pending for adjudication, the Management had issued a letter dated
11th November, 2000 to the Petitioner-Workman to join his duties.
11 . However, the Petitioner in his evidence specifically stated
that pursuant to the said letter, he went to join his duties, but was
not allowed to enter into the factory premises as before. Thus, it is
clear from the materials on record that the Petitioner was denied
entry into the factory premises in absence of evidence to the
contrary. As such, the Petitioner is entitled to back wages. But,
learned Tribunal, without assigning any reason, refused to grant
back wages to the Petitioner-Workman.
12. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and
in view the ratio of Deepali Gundu Surwase vrs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (ED) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324,
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17
in addition to reinstatement, as awarded in ID Case No.26 of 1999,
this Court directs that the Petitioner be paid 50 % (fifty percent) of
the back wages, i.e., from the date of refusal of employment till the
date of Award dated 14th February, 2007 passed in ID Case No.26
of 1999. The back wages shall be paid to the Petitioner by the
Opposite Party No.2-Management within a period of six months
hence, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to workout the
remedy for implementation of the same.
13. With the aforesaid modification of the Award under
Annexure-1, the writ petition is disposed of.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of the judgment be granted as per
rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Dated the 20th Day of January, 2026
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack///Rojalin///
