Dismissed

Kailash Ch.Swain v. Dir,Printing,Station

Orissa HC9 Nov 2021WA/408/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Single Judge's judgment which held the termination of the appellant's service illegal but awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. The High Court upheld the decision, ruling that for casual workers terminated due to procedural defects, monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy rather than automatic reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

The application for reinstatement was dismissed in favor of monetary compensation, which had already been paid.

Kailash Ch.Swain Vs Dir,Printing,Station — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.408 of 2013

¶3

Kailash Ch. Swain

¶4

…. Appellant Mr. S.B. Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Director Printing, Stationary and Publications, Orissa and another

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. M.K. Khuntia,

¶9

Additional Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶13

ORDER Order No. 09.11.2021

¶14

¶15

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26^th March, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14764 of 2007. In the impugned judgment, while holding the termination of the Appellant by the Respondent No.1 Management to be illegal, the learned Single Judge directed Respondent No.1 to pay him Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶16

The case of the Appellant is that he was working as a Contract Helper under Respondent No.1 i.e. Director, Printing, Stationery and Publications, Orissa. His services were terminated in the year 1994 without following the provisions of Sections 25-N read with Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’). During conciliation proceedings, the Management initially agreed to reinstate him with

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

continuity in service till 1994 by treating him as senior in the gradation list of 133 Casual Helpers. However, the Management in fact did not reinstate the Appellant and the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report. Thereupon, a reference was made to the Labour Court by the Government of the following dispute:

¶19

“(i) Whether the action of the management of Director, Printing, Stationary and Publication, Orissa, Madhupatna, Cuttack-10 in terminating the services of Sri Kailash Chandra Swain, Casual Helper with effect from 3.8.94 is legal and / or justified?

¶20

(ii) If not, what relief is the workman entitled to?”

¶21

The Labour Court found that in the complaint made before the Conciliation Officer, the Appellant stated that he had been appointed with effect from 3^rd February 1994 and that he was discontinued from service with effect from 3^rd August, 1994. Accordingly, the Labour Court concluded that the Appellant on his own admission did not work for 240 days continuously prior to his disengagement.

¶22

The contention of the Appellant was that since he was continuously serving the management his disengagement was illegal as he was not given any notice prior thereto. The Labour Court answered this issue against the Appellant and upheld the termination order.

¶23

The Award dated 2^nd June, 2007 of the Labour Court was assailed in this Court by the Appellant in W.P.(C) No.14764 of 2007, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 26^th March 2013. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the action of the Management in terminating the service of the Appellant without complying with Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was illegal. The learned Single Judge agreed that the

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Appellant was working as Casual Helper since 3^rd February 1994 and disengaged on 3^rd August, 1994. Nevertheless, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp.. v. Gitam Singh 2013 LLR 225, it was held that the Appellant is not entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Accordingly, it was directed that the Respondent No.1 should pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to him as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the termination of the service of the Appellant was found to be illegal by the learned Single Judge, his reinstatement should have followed as a matter of course. When asked about the applicability of the judgment in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. v. Gitam Singh ( supra ) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 , learned counsel for the Appellant did not have any submission to make. In the last mentioned decision the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position as under:

¶27

“It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and / or mala fide and / or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workmen should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

In view of the settled position of law, this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The Court is informed by counsel for Respondent No.1 that the compensation amount as directed by the learned Single Judge has already been paid to the Appellant.

¶30

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

R.K. Singh/Jagabandhu

¶32

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Kailash Ch.Swain v. Dir,Printing,Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Ch.Swain v. Dir,Printing,Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Nayana Pradhan Vs State

Balaaram Mohanty Vs State and Ors.

Bipin Ku.Jayasingh Vs State and Ors.

Jotho Gomanogo Vs State and Ors.

Dhiroj Kumar Padhi Vs State and Ors.