Dismissed

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation v. Gurubari Behera

Orissa HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/24046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award directing payment of ₹1,00,000 to a workman. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal had heard evidence and recorded findings, and that evidence sufficiency is not a ground for Article 227 interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Vs Gurubari… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 24046 of 2019

¶2

02. 12.12.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

Petitioner is the management of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation represented through its Commissioner filed this writ petition on 2.12.2019 assailing the award dated 31.7.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 138 of 2008. In the award the management has been directed to pay the second party a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages within a month of publication of the award.

¶4

The opposite party-workman raised a dispute before the Labour Authority. Accordingly a reference was made by the Government of Odisha in its Labour and Employment Department under the schedule of reference as follows:-

¶5

“Whether the action of the Executive Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Gurubari Behera, by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 1.11.1992 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Behera is entitled ?”

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the Xerox copy of Ext. C in Court today. The same be kept on record. He contended that the workman never engaged under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and the finding of the Tribunal that he was working in Yatri Nivas, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar from 1987 to 1992 need be discarded. The Tribunal without considering the materials on record from its proper perspective passed the impugned award which needs to be interfered with.

¶7

The case of the workman before the Tribunal is that he was employed by the first party and joined under it as a NMRcum-DLR on 27.11.87 on a monthly remuneration of Rs.750/-

¶8

¶9

¶10

and continued as such till his termination from job on 1.11.1992. The action of the management in terminating the workman from service was challenged by him on the ground that without complying to the mandatory provision of the Act.

¶11

Before the Tribunal the management entered appearance and submitted their written statement denying the claims of the workman. In support of their claim the workman examined himself and another witness i.e. W.W. No.2 relying on three documents marked as Ext. 1 to 3. The Management also examined one witness as M.W.No.1 relying five documents marked as Ext.A to Ext.E.

¶12

On perusal of the impugned award it reveals that the Tribunal has taken note of Ext. ‘C’ relied by the first party management which is the list of its employees. However the said list started from Serial No. 54 and the name of the employees are not listed serially as taken note of by the Tribunal for which the Tribunal has came to a conclusion that the enclosure found to be an incomplete list and would make no sense. It also reveals the name of the employees not listed serially in respect to their date of joining. List is prepared half-hazardly. Ext.C being issued in the year 2013 cannot be taken into consideration. The Tribunal also taken note of the argument made by the management that the workman at no point of time was employed under first party management 27.11.1987 to 1.11.1992 in Yatri Niwas. To that effect Tribunal has taken note of Ext.B the list of staff showing the engagement for the period 1988 to 1994 in the Yatri Niwas. However in the said list Ext.B in respect of staff of the Yatri Niwas not in respect of daily labourer engaged by the petitioner. The first party management has also not produced any document

¶13

¶14

from 1987 to 1992 showing that the workman is not working. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that when the first party management produces a bunch of documents relating to the year 1988 and onwards, what prevented it to place the seniority/gradation list of the NMR/DLR employees of the year 1987 and prior to it as the case relates to the claim of the second party. Besides, the first party, Municipal Corporation of Bhubaneswar being a statutory body must have maintained all the required registers, regarding the employment and the employees/their disbursement of remuneration/accounts of leave etc. and all matters relating to their employment. In view of the above and as workman has crossed age of superannuation the Tribunal has directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶15

In view of the discussions made hereinabove paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal after going through the evidence available on record and upon hearing the parties at length has passed the impugned award with reasons. There is no error apparent on the face of it.

¶16

The Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs.

¶17

K.S.Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477

¶18

wherein it was held that finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceeding 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 interference of fact to be drawn from the said findings are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. The aforesaid settled principle still hold good and the said principle

¶19

¶20

was reiterated in a decision reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270, M/s. Pepsico India Holding Private Limited Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey .

¶21

In view of the above settled principle, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

……....………….. S. Panda, J.

¶24

..……......…..…..

¶25

S.K. Sahoo, J.

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation v. Gurubari Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation v. Gurubari Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravabati Bhol Vs State and Ors.

M/S Acrux Realcon Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Satyanarayan Jena Vs Union of India

Anadi Bagha Vs State of Orissa

Sukanta Jena Vs State of Odisha

Chandramani Banchhor @ Chandramani Adbong Vs State of Odisha