Quashed

Ku.Sanjukta Sahoo v. P.O.Industrial

Orissa HC23 Sept 2021WP(C)/15039/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an Industrial Tribunal Award that failed to discuss evidence and decided an unraised issue. The Court remitted the I.D. Case to the Tribunal for a fresh Award within three months on the original facts, barring re-examination of jurisdictional issues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Award set aside; reference remitted to Tribunal for fresh Award within three months.

Ku.Sanjukta Sahoo Vs P.O.Industrial — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15039 of 2014

¶3

Kumari Sanjukta Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

The Presiding Officer, Industrial …. Opposite Parties Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and another

¶6

Mr. P.K. Muduli, A.G.A. Mr. B.K. Routray, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 23.09.2021

Order No.

The challenge in the present petition by the workman is to an Award dated 23^rd December, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal), Bhubaneswar answering the reference made to it against the workman.

¶12

The background facts are that the Petitioner who stated to be physically disabled was, according to her, engaged by the Opposite Party No.2-Vyasa Nagar College (Auto), Jajpur Road, Jajpur as Matron attached to the office of the Superintendent, Women‟s Hostel on 16^th December, 2002. She claims that initially she was getting Rs.700/- per month towards her salary. This was subsequently enhanced to Rs.800/- per month and at the time of termination of her services, she has been paid Rs.100/per month. She claimed that her work was merely clerical in nature and she was useful helping in cooking of food for the

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

students, attend telephone calls, maintained in and outgoing register, visitors register, etc..

¶16

According to the Petitioner in response to her claim for increase in salary, Opposite Party No.2-Management terminated her services by way of refusal of employment on 11^th July, 2008 without notice.

¶17

Aggrieved by the above action, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. After the conciliation process ended in failure, the Labour and ESI Department, Government of Odisha referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 („ID Act‟):

¶18

“Whether the termination of services of Sanjukta Sahoo, Matron, by the Management of Vyas Nagar College, Jajpur Road, Jajpur w.e.f.11/07/2008 is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief Sanjukta Sahoo is entitled to?”

¶19

In paragraph 6 of the claim statement, the workman stated “that the 1^st party management is an industry as defined under the I.D. Act-1947 and there are more than 1500 of employees are working under the management….”

¶20

The management filed the written statement on 2^nd September, 2013 not giving any parawise reply. Importantly barring a broad denial that the allegations made in the complaint were false and baseless, there was no specific denial of the above averment in

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

para 6 of the claim that the Management was an industry within the meaning of the ID Act.

¶24

The Petitioner examined herself and exhibited four documents and the Management examined three witnesses and exhibited ten documents.

¶25

By the impugned Award dated 23^rd December, 2013, the Tribunal held that the Opposite Party No.2-Management is not an industry and therefore the claim was not maintainable. This finding was given in response to Issue Nos.1 and 2 which were a reproduction of the terms of the dispute referred for adjudication. In other words, neither of the issues referred to the status of the Management. Since no plea was raised by the Management before the Tribunal that it was not an industry as defined under the ID Act, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to decide such issue.

¶26

As regards, the issue concerning the termination of the services of the Petitioner, the Tribunal without discussing any of the four witnesses or the fourteen documents, simply held that “there are series of evidence on record relating to her unsatisfactory performance including the complaints of the boarders for which she was asked to explain the same.” It was held that there were sufficient materials to disengage the workman and therefore it would not proper on the part of the Tribunal to interfere with the decision of the Management.

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal based its rejection of the claim of the Petitioner workman on an issue that was not even raised by the Management viz., whether it was an industry and whether the Petitioner herein was „workman‟ within the meaning of ID Act. No such plea was raised in the written statement filed by the Management before the Tribunal. Interestingly, the Management does not appear to have challenged the reference made by the Government on 29^th February, 2012 which again did not include any such issue.

¶30

Even as regards the main issue referred for adjudication, viz., the legality of the termination of the services of the Petitioner workman, the Court finds that despite four witnesses having been examined, one on behalf of the workman and three on behalf of the Management and fourteen documents having been exhibited, the Tribunal failed to discuss the said evidence. Being the forum of the first instance, it was incumbent on the Tribunal to discuss the evidence in detail and base its conclusions on an analysis of the evidence. The impugned Award fails to do this and therefore is unsustainable in law even on this score.

¶31

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned Award is hereby set aside and the reference in I.D. Case No.11 of 2012 is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh Award to be passed, on the basis of the evidence that has already been led by the parties and after arguments have been advanced by both the parties. I.D. Case No.11 of 2012 shall now be listed before the Tribunal at

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

Bhubaneswar on 15^th November, 2011 on which date both the parties will appear and not seek unnecessary adjournment. After hearing the arguments on both parties on the basis of the evidence already on record, the Tribunal will proceed to deliver a fresh Award uninfluenced by the earlier Award and confine it to the two issues it has already framed. In other words, it will not be open to the Tribunal to again examine whether the Management is an industry or the Petitioner is a workman within the meaning of ID Act.

¶35

Considering that the reference is more than 9 years old, the Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh Award within a period of three months from 15^th November, 2021.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

LCR be sent back forthwith.

¶38

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶39

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶40

Chief Justice

¶41

( B.P. Routray)

¶42

Judge

¶43

B.K. Barik

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Ku.Sanjukta Sahoo v. P.O.Industrial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku.Sanjukta Sahoo v. P.O.Industrial

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

Sambalpur University Vs Satyanarayan Pradhan

Puran Alloy and Steel Vs Commnr.Commercialtax

Khandelwal Tubes and Vs Sales Tax Officer

Akshaya Kumar Mishra Vs Cuttack Development Authority

Bharat Petroleum Cor Vs Union of India.

Dr.Rabinarayan Mohap Vs State and Ors.