This writ petition challenged an ex parte award reinstating a suspended workman. The court found no evidence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the workman and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned award quashing proceedings directed against petitioner-Management is maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OJC NO. 11599 of 1998
07. 05.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the Management of Kalyansinghpur Large Sized Multipurpo
se Co-operative Society Ltd., Kalyanisinghpur has prayed to quash the ex parte award dated 09.
03.1998 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in I.
D. Case No. 11 of 1996 and for a direction to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial di
spute afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 4-Workman while workin
g as Salesman in the establishment of the petitioner-Management, misappropriated certain amoun
t and accordingly, a recovery proceeding was drawn up against him in the year, 1982 and he was
placed under suspension. The Workman made several representations to the Asst. Registrar of t
he Management to reinstate him in service, but he did not take any action. Finding no other al
ternative, he filed a complaint before the District Labour Officer, Raygada claiming regulariz
ation of his service and payment of subsistence allowance. In the conciliation proceeding, the
management did not appear in spite of service notice on it. Accordingly, the District Labour
Officer submitted its failure report to the appropriate Government and the State Government i
n Labour and Employment Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in exercise of its power conferred und
er Section 12 (5) read with Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
matter to learned Labour Court vide memo no. 11970 dated 12.08.1996 for adjudication. I.D. Ca
se No. 11 of 1996 was registered on the board of learned Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput.
4. Learned Labour Court taking into consideration the materials available on reco
rd and the evidence adduced by the Workman passed the impugned award under Annexure-9.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that on the date of hear
ing of the industrial dispute, the Management had filed a petition for adjournment on the grou
nd that the Managing Director of LAMPS, Kesingpur is sick with virus fever and was unable to g
et ready for hearing on the date fixed. As the petition was filed without enclosing a medical
certificate in support of his illness, the time petition was rejected holding that the Workman
is out of employment since 1982 without getting subsistence allowance and ex parte award was
passed, which is per se illegal and is not sustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4-Workman supporting the impugned ex
parte award submits that the Workman was engaged as Salesman in the year, 1979 on monthly wag
e of Rs.150/- and on the allegation of misappropriation of certain amount, he was put under su
spension by the Management in the year, 1982. During suspension period, no enquiry was conduct
ed and no charge was framed against him and he was not paid his subsistence allowance. He fur
ther submits that there is absolutely no evidence to show that any proceeding was drawn up aga
inst the Workman after 20.09.1982 or any charge was communicated to him. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the part
ies and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Workman was placed under suspension
with effect from 20.09.21982. But, no material could be placed before us by the Management as
to whether any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him or not. In that view of the
matter, we find that the impugned award directing the Management-petitioner to reinstate the W
orkman and pay the subsistence allowance is justified and needs no interference. As such, we f
ind no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
bks
bks
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex parte award made in the absence of the management managing director should be interfered with?
Whether the impugned award directing the management to reinstate the workman and pay subsistence allowance is justified?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Management of Kalyansinghpur Large Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd.
Workman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court