Disposed

Narendra Pradhan v. P.O.,CGITandLABOUR Co.

Orissa HC18 May 2016WP(C)/15630/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that since the intervenors are proper parties under the 1994 Scheme and their interests may be affected, the decision to quash the rejection of their intervention application would not be wise. Consequently, the court directed the Labour Court to implead the intervenors in the underlying proceeding and disposed of the writ petition in light of this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Labour Court to implead the intervenors in the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

W.P.(C). No.15630 of 2011 Misc. Case No.6610 of 2016 Misc. Case No.8559 of 2011 W.P.(C). No.15630 of 2011 18.05.2016 Though this matter was listed under the heading for orders, on the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the order dated 26.04.2 011 passed by opposite party No.1-Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC rejecting an application filed in I.D. No.19 of 2008 for intervention wit h the observation that there is no scope under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Indust rial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) to allow the intervention petition and permit the intervenor to participate in the proceeding initiated by the workmen against the employer for certain claims due to under the provisions of the Act. Heard Mr.D.Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.K.Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.3-Chairman, Management Committee, Paradip Po rt, Paradip and Mr.Sanjat Das, learned counsel appearing for the General Secretary, Utkal Port and Dock Workers Union, Paradip.

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties submit that the Scheme was prepa red under the Major Port Trusts Act making provisions for Cleaning, Forwarding and Handling Wo rkers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme in the year 1994. For implementation of such Scheme, p rovision was made for flow of funds from the employer. Since the intervenor-petitioners appreh end that their interest may be affected in case the proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Ac t is adjudicated in their absence in the proceeding is necessary. Moreover, they are proper pa rty to the proceeding.

However, taking into consideration the Scheme of 1994, we are not going to enter into merits of the case, as the intervenor-petitioners, who are proper parties to the proceedin. Th ey may be impleaded as parties in the said proceeding for convenience of the parties. Accordin gly, we direct the parties to appear before the learned Labour Court on 24th May, 2016, and on their appearance necessary date may be fixed for hearing of the proceeding. It is made clear that endeavour shall be made to dispose of the proceeding as early as possible, preferably by end of September, 2016.

The Writ Petition as well as the misc. case for intervention stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. Interim order dated 13.06.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.8559 of 2011 gets merged with this order. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

Narendra Pradhan v. P.O.,CGITandLABOUR Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Pradhan v. P.O.,CGITandLABOUR Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanika Ekka Vs Collector and D.M.-Cumspl.Land Acquisition Officer,Sundargarh

Prafulla Ku.Dash Vs State and Ors.

Siddhartha Sankar Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Ananda Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Samir Ku.Nayak Vs Spl.Land Acquisition

Nilamadhab Deo Vs Collector,Khurda