Dismissed

Odisha S.Handloom v. P.O,Labour Court

Orissa HC27 Sept 2021WP(C)/15587/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Disputes Tribunal award. The Tribunal had ordered reinstatement and 50% back wages due to violations of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal was rejected as the Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction. (27.09.2021)

What the court decided

AI extract

Odisha S.Handloom Vs P.O,Labour Court — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15587 of 2012

¶3

Odisha State Handloom W.C.S. Ltd.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Satya R. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Presiding Officer, Labour Court and …. Opposite Parties Others

¶8

Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 27.09.2021

¶12

Order No.

¶13

B.P. Routray, J.

¶14

¶15

The award dated 21^st May, 2012 of the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.75 of 1999 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶16

The Petitioner was the 1^st party management before the Labour Court and opposite party No. 2 to 5 were the workmen. The reference dated 19^th August, 1999 reads as under:-

¶17

“Whether the management of M/s.Odisha State handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Bhubaneswar has followed the principle of last come first go as envisaged in Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 in retrenching 43 D.L.R. employee-s? If not to what relief the D.L.R. Employees are entitled?”

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

The engagement and continuance of opposite party No. 2 to 5 as workmen under petitioner – management and their retrenchment with effect from 16^th March, 1999 are not in dispute. In adjudicating the reference, learned labour court directed for reinstatement of workmen and payment of 50% back wages with the finding that the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act were not complied before retrenching the workmen and there is violation of Section 25-G.

¶20

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that when the reference was specific for compliance of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, the labour court has exceeded its jurisdiction in further examining compliance of Section 25-F. It is also submitted that the learned labour court has come to an erroneous finding about non-compliance of Section 25-F despite service of one month statutory notice before retrenchment of each workman.

¶21

It is seen from the impugned award that four witnesses from the side of workmen and two witnesses by the Management have been examined. The management has also marked several documents in support of its contentions as Ext-A to T. The specific finding of the learned Labour Court about noncompliance of Section 25-F is to the effect that neither one month’s prior notice has been served nor any payment in lieu of the same was paid to opposite party workmen. The relevant observations of the labour court are as follows:-

¶22

“xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

¶23

On the above score, the advocate for the workmen urged that no one month prior notice or no pay in lieu

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

thereof and retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been complied with by the management while retrenching their services. On the other hand, the advocate for the management urged that at the time of retrenchment of the workmen from services, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been duly complied with. To substantiate the above plea, the management has not filed a single piece of paper to prove the same. Rather during crossexamination, in paragraph 6, M.W.1 has categorically admitted that he has not filed any document in support of payment and receipt of compensation and notice pay in respect of the workmen. So in view of the above admission of the M.W.1, the plea taken by the management that due notice and retrenchment compensation has been paid to the workmen is out of imagination and cannot be believable.

¶26

On perusal of the documents as available in the case record, it clearly shows that the management while retrenching the services of the workmen namely, Pravat Nalini Mallick, Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Bhikari Parida and Purna Charan Sahu, no prior one month notice or notice pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation has been paid to them as required under Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Similarly the management has also violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by retaining some workers who are juniors to the present workmen and allowed them to continue in service even after retrenchment of the present workmen. So on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the retrenchment of the above named four workmen from service with effect from 16.3.1999 is neither legal nor justified. Hence the above named four workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service.

¶27

xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx."

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

None of the exhibits filed by the petitioner before the labour court shows compliance of requirement of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Though the petitioner disputes such observations of the learned labour court, but not a single document has been filed by him before this Court in this regard. It also reveals from the evidence of M.W.1 that he has admitted during his crossexamination about non-filing of any document in support of service of one month prior notice or payment in lieu of the same. Therefore, the entire contentions of the petitioner that it has complied with the statutory provisions under Section 25-F, is rejected.

¶30

Further, the submission of the Petitioner that the learned labour court has exceeded its jurisdiction to examine compliance of Section 25-F in absence of specific reference to that effect, is not found convincing. It needs to be mentioned here that the dispute in the reference is regarding retrenchment of the workmen. Admittedly, their employment and continuous engagement are not disputed. The reference was in respect of 43 D.L.R. employees including opposite party No. 2 to 5. So while adjudicating the dispute all such questions essential to determine the validity of retrenchment of the workman cannot be avoided and should be examined by the court. Therefore, we do not see any fault in the approach of the learned labour court for giving its finding on compliance of Section 25-F. So the contention of the petitioner in this regard is found devoid of merit.

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

For the reasons stated above, we do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned award. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

M.K. Panda

¶35

( B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Odisha S.Handloom v. P.O,Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Odisha S.Handloom v. P.O,Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Singh Vs State and Ors.

A.Mina Rao Vs Utkal Gramya Bank

Mgt.of Exe.Engineer Vs Dillip Ku.Biswal

Sanjay Ku.Sahoo Vs State

Sk.Ilyas Vs State

Dharmananda Parida Vs State of Orissa