[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Secretary vs Bhaba Sundar Dalai And .... Opp. Parties on 17 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: B. P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8128 of 2019
Secretary, Berhampur .... Petitioner
Cooperative Central Bank
Ltd., Berhmapur, Ganjam
Mr. Yasobant Das, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Bhaba Sundar Dalai and .... Opp. Parties
Others
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
For O.P. Nos. 1 to 6-Workmen
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 17.03.2026
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner-
Management calls in question the legality and propriety of the
Award dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.19 of 2015,
whereby the learned Tribunal, while answering the reference in
favour of the Opposite Party-Workmen, directed the Petitioner-
Management to reinstate the concerned workmen in its
establishment and further directed payment of 20% of the back
wages to them.
2. The background facts, in brief, are that the Berhampur
Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., the Petitioner-Management, is a
registered Central Cooperative Society under the Odisha
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. In order to augment its deposits,
the Bank introduced a Daily Deposit Scheme pursuant to a
Resolution dated 17.03.1998, and for the purpose of mobilising
deposits engaged certain Commission Agents/Daily Deposit
Agents. In pursuance thereof, 26 Daily Deposit Agents were
engaged in different branches of the Bank, including Opp. Parties-
Workmen, who are the Opposite Parties in the present Writ Petition,
and agreements were executed with them at the time of their
engagement. Subsequently, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Odisha, by communication dated 03.02.2004 bearing Letter
No.1812, directed all Cooperative Banks and Urban Cooperative
Banks not to engage new agents under the Daily Deposit Scheme
and further directed that no new Daily Deposit Accounts be opened,
save and except after verification of the existing accounts and
subject to prior approval of the Registrar. The said direction was
reiterated by the Registrar vide Letter No.2074 dated 05.08.2014,
instructing all Managers and Branch Managers of Cooperative
Banks not to open Daily Deposit Accounts and to implement the
earlier directions issued on 03.02.2004 in their true spirit. The
aforesaid directions were also published in Odia daily newspapers.
In view of the losses allegedly sustained under the Daily Deposit
Scheme, the Managing Committee of the Bank, by Resolution dated
07.11.2014, resolved not to continue the services of the Daily
Deposit Agents and consequently, by Letter No.4696 dated
17.01.2015, the Branch Managers were informed regarding the
closure of the said Scheme.
Aggrieved thereby, the Opposite Party-Workmen initially
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20517 of 2014, which was
disposed of by order dated 05.08.2014 directing the competent
authority to consider the representation of the Opposite Parties.
Upon rejection of their representation, the Opposite Parties once
again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2389 of 2015. Pursuant
to the liberty granted therein, the Opp. Parties-Workmen invoked
the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing an
application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, contending that the action of the Petitioner-Management in
discontinuing their engagement was illegal and unjustified and
seeking appropriate relief. The Petitioner-Management, upon
notice, entered appearance and contested the claim, whereafter both
Parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the
learned Tribunal. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the
learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar passed the Award dated
26.09.2018 in I.D. Case No.19 of 2015, directing reinstatement of
the Opp. Parties-Workmen in the establishment of the Petitioner-
Management with 20% back wages.
Being aggrieved by the said Award, particularly the
direction for reinstatement with partial back wages, the Petitioner-
Management has instituted the present W.P.(C) No.8128 of 2019
contending, inter alia, that the Award is illegal and perverse; that
the Daily Deposit Scheme itself having been discontinued and the
posts having ceased to exist, the direction for reinstatement is
incapable of implementation; that the proceedings before the
Tribunal were not maintainable; and further that no employer-
employee relationship existed between the Petitioner-Management
and the Opposite Parties, thereby rendering the impugned Award
liable for interference by this Court.
3. Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner-Management, assailed the impugned Award contending
that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in directing
reinstatement of the Opp Party-Workmen, inasmuch as the Daily
Deposit Scheme under which the Opposite Parties were engaged
had already been discontinued by the Bank pursuant to the
directions issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the
subsequent resolution of the Managing Committee. It was urged
that once the Scheme itself stood closed and the very basis of
engagement ceased to exist, the direction for reinstatement becomes
incapable of implementation in law. It was further contended that
the engagement of the Opposite Parties was purely contractual in
nature as commission agents under specific agreements and that no
relationship of employer and employee existed between the
Petitioner-Management and the Opposite Parties. According to
learned Senior Counsel, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the
said aspect and erroneously proceeded to treat the Opposite Parties
as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also
submitted that the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of the
dispute and granted a relief which is otherwise impermissible in law
when the post itself stands abolished. In support of the aforesaid
contentions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in Municipal
Council, Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173;
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No.6795
of 2013; and K.V. Anil Mithra & Anr. vs. Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit & Anr., (2022) 17 SCC 505.
4. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Opp. Parties-Workmen, vehemently contended that the nature of
engagement of the Opposite Parties with the Petitioner-
Management stands settled in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Indian Banks
Association vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors., AIR 2001
SC 946, wherein it has been held that deposit collectors performing
similar duties would fall within the ambit of "workmen" under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the commission earned by
them constitutes wages dependent on productivity. It was thus
submitted that the aforesaid issue having already been settled by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court, the same requires no further re-examination in
the present proceeding. Learned counsel also urged that the
Petitioner-Management, having failed to comply with the
mandatory requirement of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, is disentitled from assailing the Award on merits before
this Court.
5. During the course of hearing of the present Writ Petition,
although submissions had been advanced on the merits of the
dispute including the question relating to the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner-
Management and the Opp. Parties-Workmen, the learned counsel
appearing for the respective Parties ultimately confined their
arguments to the limited issue concerning the nature of relief to be
granted in the facts of the present case. More particularly, the
submissions were centred on the question as to the quantum of
compensation payable in lieu of reinstatement of the Opposite
Parties-Workmen, having regard to the admitted position that the
Daily Deposit Scheme, under which they had been engaged as
Commission Agents, has since been discontinued and the posts in
question have consequently ceased to exist. In that context, learned
counsel for both Parties placed reliance upon several decisions of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, in support of their
respective submissions regarding the principles governing the grant
and determination of compensation in substitution of reinstatement.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective Parties
and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court,
before adverting to the issues in controversy, considers it
appropriate to observe that it is well settled that the writ courts
exercise only a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India while examining awards passed
by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. The scope of such
jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality, procedural
propriety and jurisdictional correctness of the award and does not
ordinarily extend to re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of
findings of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority. Interference
is thus warranted only where the award is shown to suffer from
patent illegality, perversity, violation of the principles of natural
justice, or jurisdictional error.
7. In the present case, admittedly no such ground has been
urged by either of the Parties to demonstrate that the impugned
Award suffers from any apparent illegality on the face of the record.
The materials reveal that both the Petitioner-Management and the
Opp. Parties-Workmen had led evidence before the learned
Tribunal and the learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the same,
recorded its findings on the issues framed for its determination,
including the question as to whether the refusal of employment to
the Opp. Parties-Workmen consequent upon closure of the Daily
Deposit Scheme was justified. This Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though
empowered to examine the correctness of the findings of the
Tribunal within the contours of Article 226, cannot sit in appeal to
re-evaluate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion unless
the findings are shown to be perverse. In the case at hand, no
material has been brought to the notice of this Court warranting
interference with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal,
save and except the limited question as to whether, in the peculiar
facts of the case, the Opp. Parties-Workmen ought to be awarded
monetary compensation in lieu of the direction of reinstatement.
8. Insofar as the issue relating to the grant of monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, this Court has
been taken through several decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respective Parties.
Having regard to the rival submissions advanced, this Court finds it
appropriate to refer to certain authoritative pronouncements of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court which lay down the governing principles in
such matters.
9. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan
Prasad and Anr. vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food
Corporation of India and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190
has held as under:
"19. The following passages from the said judgment
would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the
question of reinstatement: (BSNL case, SCC pp. 187- 88,
paras 29-30)
"29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to
two judgments wherein this Court granted
compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL v.
Man Singh, this Court has held that when the
termination is set aside because of violation of Section
25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary
that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of
right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it was
held that those cases where the workman had worked
on daily-wage basis, and worked merely for a period
of 240 days or 2 to 3 years and where the termination
had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was
to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 30. In
this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was
reiterated by referring to various judgments, as is clear
from the following discussion: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras
2-4)
"2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically
follow in a case where the engagement of a daily-
wager has been brought to an end in violation of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
(for short "the ID Act")? The course of the
decisions of this Court in recent years has been
uniform on the above question.
3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture
Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court,
one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the
recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey,
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C.
Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P.
Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru
Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development
Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar and
Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and
stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330
& 335, paras 7 & 14)
"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court
articulated in many decisions reflected the legal
position that if the termination of an employee
was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement
with full back wages would ordinarily follow.
However, in recent past, there has been a shift in
the legal position and in a long line of cases, this
Court has consistently taken the view that relief
by way of reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a
given fact situation even though the termination
of an employee is in contravention of the
prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of
reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of
justice.
×××
14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of
decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly
laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in
violation of Section 25-F although may be set
aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, be automatically passed. The award of
reinstatement with full back wages in a case
where the workman has completed 240 days of
work in a year preceding the date of termination,
particularly, daily-wagers has not been found to
be proper by this Court and instead compensation
has been awarded. This Court has distinguished
between a daily-wager who does not hold a post
and a permanent employee."
4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in
Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein
this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 11)
"11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and
the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily-
wagers about 25 years back and they worked
hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and
back wages to them cannot be said to be justified
and instead monetary compensation would
subserve the ends of justice.""
10. Furthermore, in the matter of Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, 2025 INSC
218, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while examining the principles
governing grant of back wages and appropriate relief in industrial
adjudication, observed that though reinstatement with back wages
may ordinarily follow when termination is found to be illegal, the
courts may, in appropriate cases, direct payment of lump sum
compensation instead of reinstatement where such course would
better serve the interests of both the employee and the employer.
The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:
"44. There is one other aspect that would fall for
consideration of the court. In certain decisions, noticed in
Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), it has been opined that
whether or not an employee has been gainfully employed
is within his special knowledge and having regard to
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of
proof is on him. What is required of an employee in such
a case? He has to plead in his statement of claim or any
subsequent pleading before the industrial tribunal/labour
court that he has not been gainfully employed and that
the award of reinstatement may also grant him back
wages. If the employee pleads that he was not gainfully
employed, he cannot possibly prove such negative fact
by adducing positive evidence. In the absence of any
contra-material on record, his version has to be accepted.
Reference in this connection may be made to Section 17-
B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confers a
right on an employee to seek "full wages last drawn"
from the employer while the challenge of the employer to
an award directing reinstatement in a higher court
remains pending. There too, what is required is a
statement on affidavit regarding non-employment and
with such statement on record, the ball is in the court of
the employer to satisfy the court why relief under such
section ought not to be granted by invoking the proviso
to the section. We see no reason why a similar approach
may not be adopted. After the employee pleads his non-
employment and if the employer asserts that the
employee was gainfully employed between the dates of
termination and proposed reinstatement, the onus of
proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion
having regard to the cardinal principle that „he who
asserts must prove‟. Law, though, seems to be well
settled that if the employer by reason of its illegal act
deprives any of its employees from discharging his work
and the termination is ultimately held to be bad in law,
such employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be
restored with all that he would have received but for
being illegally kept away from work. This is based on the
principle that although the employee was willing to
perform work, it was the employer who did not accept
work from him and, therefore, if the employer‟s action is
held to be illegal and bad, such employer cannot escape
from suffering the consequences. However, it is
elementary but requires to be restated that while grant of
full back wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case
with sufficient proof has to be set up by the employer to
escape the burden of bearing back wages.
45. We hasten to add that the courts may be confronted
with cases where grant of lumpsum compensation,
instead of reinstatement with back wages, could be the
more appropriate remedy. The courts may, in such cases,
providing justification for its approach direct such
lumpsum compensation to be paid keeping in mind the
interest of the employee as well as the employer."
11. Upon consideration of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, we draw the
conclusion that where termination of service is found to be illegal
or unjustified under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the aggrieved
workman is entitled to appropriate relief intended to restore him to
the position which he would have occupied but for such illegality.
Ordinarily, such relief may take the form of reinstatement with
consequential benefits including back wages. However, the law as
crystallised by the Hon‟ble Apex Court equally recognises that
reinstatement is not an automatic or invariable consequence in
every case where termination is set aside. The Court, while
moulding the relief, must have due regard to the nature of
engagement, the length of service, the passage of time since
termination, and the practical feasibility of reinstatement,
particularly in situations where the very post or scheme under
which the workman was engaged has ceased to exist. In such
circumstances, the ends of justice may be adequately met by
directing payment of reasonable lump sum compensation in lieu of
reinstatement, thereby balancing the interests of both the workman
and the employer.
12. In the case at hand, it is the stand of the Petitioner-
Management that the Scheme under which the Opp. Parties-
Workmen had been engaged was discontinued on the ground that
the Daily Deposit Scheme was no longer profitable and that the
audit of the Bank had revealed instances of misappropriation of
funds. However, it is not the case of the Petitioner-Management that
any such misconduct was attributed to any particular member of the
Opp. Parties-Workmen. The decision of the Petitioner-Management
was ultimately to discontinue the Scheme and abolish the posts of
Commission Agents on the ground of loss of confidence and the
financial unviability of the Scheme. In such circumstances, when
the very Scheme under which the Opposite Parties-Workmen were
engaged is no longer in existence and the posts themselves have
ceased to exist, the question of directing reinstatement of the
Opposite Parties-Workmen does not arise.
13. In this context, it is apposite to recall the observations of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs. The
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court,
reported in AIR 1981 SC 422, as under:
"We do not propose to refer to the cases arising
under section 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act
or to cases arising out of references under sections
10 and 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Nor do we
propose to engage ourselves in the unfruitful task of
answering the question whether the termination of the
services of a workman in violation of the provisions of S.
25F is void ab initio or merely invalid and inoperative,
even if it is possible to discover some razor‟s edge
distinction between the Latin „Void ab initio‟ and the
Anglo-Saxon „invalid and inoperative‟. Semantic
luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of „bread and
butter‟ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity,
receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is
designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief,
the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological
excursions. „Void ab initio‟. „invalid and inoperative‟ or
call it what you will, the workmen and the employer are
primarily concerned with the consequence of striking
down the order of termination of the services of the
workmen. Plain common sense dictates that the removal
of an order terminating the services of workmen must
ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it
must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be
exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or
wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen
to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For
instance, the industry might have closed down or might
be in severe financial doldrums: the workmen concerned
might have secured better or other employment
elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige
of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate
consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of
reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because
the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the
relief of award of full back wages where that would place
an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other
exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief, but,
ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement
with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where
no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief
is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be
caused to an employer but we must remember that, more
often than not comparatively far greater hardship is
certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied
than to the employer if the relief is granted."
14. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has
observed that semantic distinctions regarding the nature of
invalidity of termination are of little consequence, for what
essentially matters is the consequence of setting aside an order of
termination, which ordinarily would lead to reinstatement with back
wages. At the same time, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court clarified that
there may exist exceptional circumstances where reinstatement with
full back wages would be either impossible or inequitable; for
instance where the industry has closed down, where the employer is
in serious financial distress, or where other circumstances render
reinstatement impracticable. In such situations, the Court retains a
residual discretion to mould the relief in an appropriate manner.
15. The Scheme under which the Opp. Parties-Workmen were
engaged has admittedly been discontinued and the posts themselves
have ceased to exist. In such circumstances, directing reinstatement
would neither be practicable nor capable of effective
implementation. Consequently, the principles of equity, justice and
good conscience necessarily come into play while determining the
appropriate relief, and the grant of monetary compensation in lieu
of reinstatement would be the course that would meet the ends of
justice. It is also pertinent to note that there is no material placed
before this Court, nor any specific finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal, to indicate that the Opp. Parties-Workmen were gainfully
employed during the period they remained out of employment.
Significantly, no such plea has been specifically advanced by the
Petitioner-Management either.
Further, the nature and extent of relief in such matters is
guided not only by judicial precedents but also by the statutory
framework of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section
11-A, which confers wide powers upon the Labour Court or
Industrial Tribunal to examine the evidence and, where the
termination or discharge is found to be unjustified, to modify the
punishment and grant appropriate relief. The exercise of such power
is intended to ensure that the remedy granted adequately protects
the workman‟s right to livelihood and dignity, while at the same
time balancing the practical realities of the employer‟s
establishment.
16. In the given facts and circumstances, reinstatement of the
Opp. Parties-Workmen is rendered impracticable in view of the
closure of the Daily Deposit Scheme and the consequent abolition
of the posts under which they were engaged. Moreover, the
materials on record also reflect an apparent erosion of mutual
confidence between the Petitioner-Management and the Opp.
Parties-Workmen, which further militates against the feasibility of
reinstatement.
17. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that while
computing the liability of the Petitioner-Management under Section
17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, a sum of ₹10,00,000/- and
thereafter a further sum of ₹25,00,000/- have already been
deposited before the Registry of this Court. Out of the said amount,
a sum of ₹10,000/- each has since been disbursed in favour of the
Opp. Parties-Workmen. Thus, a substantial portion of the monetary
liability towards wages during the pendency of the writ proceedings
has already been discharged by the Petitioner-Management.
18. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner-Management is
otherwise under statutory obligation to comply with the provisions
of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and keeping in view
the overall financial status of the Cooperative Bank as well as the
circumstances leading to closure of the Scheme in the year 2015,
this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would
be adequately met by awarding lump-sum monetary compensation
in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, this Court deems it
appropriate to award a sum of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) to each of the Opposite Parties-Workmen towards full and
final settlement in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
19. The amounts already deposited by the Petitioner-
Management before this Court in compliance with Section 17-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act shall form part of the aforesaid
compensation and shall be disbursed proportionately in favour of
the Opp. Parties-Workmen upon proper identification by the
learned counsel appearing on their behalf. Since a total amount of
₹35,00,000/- has already been deposited before this Court, the
Petitioner-Management shall deposit the balance amount of
₹25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) within a period of
three months from the date of this order, which shall thereafter be
disbursed proportionately among the Opposite Parties-Workmen.
20. In the event of failure on the part of the Petitioner-
Management to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated
period, the unpaid amount shall carry interest @ 1% for the first
month after expiry of the stipulated period and @ 2% per month
thereafter until full payment is made.
21. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons assigned
hereinabove, the impugned Award dated 26.09.2018 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D.
Case No.19 of 2015, stands modified to the extent that the direction
for reinstatement of the Opp. Parties-Workmen is substituted by an
award of lump sum compensation as indicated above. The
compensation so determined shall be treated as full and final
settlement of all claims of the Opp. Parties-Workmen arising out of
the industrial dispute, including reinstatement and back wages.
22. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with
the aforesaid modification.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:34:32
