Dismissed

Managing Director Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Narayan Mallick

Orissa HC7 Jul 2021WP(C)/673/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by the petitioner challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The Tribunal held a workman utilized as a Junior Stenographer was entitled to the pay scale of a Junior Stenographer based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court found no legal error in the Tribunal's conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without any finding of legal error being committed by the Industrial Tribunal.

Managing Director Orissa Forest Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.673 of 2020

¶3

Managing Director, Orissa Forest …. Petitioner Development Corporation Ltd.

¶4

Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, Senior Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sri Narayan Mallick and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

07.07.2021

Order No.

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶15

This is a petition by the Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (OFDC) challenging an award dated 13^th September 2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.34 of 2017.

¶16

By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the Opposite Party No.1-workmen was entitled for payment at par in the scale of pay of a Junior Stenographer with effect from 6^th September, 1996.

¶17

The background facts are that Opposite Party No.1 was

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

appointed as Junior Typist in OFDC on 15^th December 1986 in the scale of pay of Rs.780-1160/- with usual DA and other allowances. The case of Opposite Party No.1 as espoused through the Union i.e. AOFCK Sangha was that his services were being utilized as a Stenographer ever since he joined the duty. Yet his representation seeking absorption in that post or being paid salary equal to that of a Junior Stenographer was not accepted by the OFDC. It was asserted that even the Chairman of OFDC had issued an order on 6^th September 1999 recommending that Opposite Party No.1 be paid the scale of a Junior Stenographer with effect from 6^th September 1996, but this was not acted upon by the OFDC.

¶20

Accordingly, a dispute was raised initially before the conciliation machinery. On the failure of such conciliation, the Government in Labour and ESI Department referred the following dispute for adjudication by its order dated 27^th December, 2017:

¶21

“Whether the demand of General Secretary, AOFCK Sangha espousing the cause of Narayan Mallick, Jr. Typist, OFDC Ltd., Head Office, Bhubaneswar for payment at par with the scale of pay of Jr. Stenographer and claim of all the arrear as well as current financial benefits in the said post w.e.f.18.12.1986 on the principle of equal pay for equal work is legal and/or justified? If so, what relief Sri Mallick is entitled to?”

¶22

The OFDC disputed the above claim by inter alia

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

contending that the qualification/job profile of a Junior Stenographer was different from that of a Junior Typist. Further, the scale of pay of a Junior Stenographer was Rs.1200-2040/- which was much higher than the scale of pay of Junior Typist i.e. Rs.780-1160/-. It was further contended that the temporary engagement of Opposite Party No.1 with the Director (Finance)/Chairman and other authorities as Stenographer did not confer on him any right to claim absorption in that cadre, which was altogether a different cadre than that of the Typist. In any event, the grade pay of Opposite Party No.1 as Junior Typist had been enhanced periodically and he was currently getting a scale of pay payable to Head Typist.

¶25

On behalf of the workman, Opposite Party No.1 examined himself as WW No.1 whereas one Sri V.V.S.N. Murty appeared as M.W. No.1.

¶26

Among the evidence adduced, was a document to show that Opposite Party No.1 had completed stenography course in 1988. While joining the Head Office at Bhubaneswar, he was attached to Director (Finance) and other Officers as a Stenographer. In a note sheet dated 6^th September 1999, the Chairman, OFDC referred to an Office Order dated 27^th August 1996 and a memo of that date which stated that Opposite Party No.1 had the knowledge of stenography and

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

could be utilized as a Stenographer and it was recommended that he should be absorbed as Junior Stenographer with effect from 6^th September, 1996. A similar recommendation was made by the Director (Finance) as well, as was evident from the note sheet.

¶29

In the impugned award, the Tribunal has referred extensively to the documents on record which included the note of the Legal Adviser recommending that since the services of Opposite Party No.1 had been utilized as a Junior Stenographer, he was entitled to a pay scale of Stenographer during the period when his services had been utilized as such on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Tribunal also noted that several documents had in fact been issued to Opposite Party No.1 by the Establishment Officer of OFDC under the RTI Act and nothing had been elicited from him as a witness to impeach genuineness of any of those documents. The genuineness of the office order dated 27^th August 1996 of the then Managing Director to the effect that Opposite Party No. 1 had knowledge in stenography and could be utilized as a Stenographer was also not doubted.

¶30

Analyzing all of the above evidence, the tribunal concluded as under:

¶31

“Whereas, the office notes relied on by the workman, go to show that the workman had the proficiency in stenography and his performance

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

as Stenographer was to the satisfaction of the Authorities. I am of the considered view that the oral evidence adduced by the workman finds due corroboration from the documents discussed hereinabove.”

¶34

This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel for the OFDC and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1.

¶35

It is submitted by Mr. Pattanaik that the cadre of a Typist was different from that of the Stenographer and the two could not be equated. He further submits that at the highest the OFDC to be asked to compensate Opposite Party No.1 in the scale of Junior Stenographer for the period during which he worked as such, and not for the entire period when he served in the OFDC.

¶36

However, Mr. Pattnaik is unable to dispute the fact that the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence adduced proved the case of Opposite Party No.1 that his services from the very beginning was utilized as a Junior Stenographer. The second factor that weighed with the Tribunal was that Opposite Party No.1 had in fact acquired the requisite qualification of a Stenographer. His services having been utilized for more than two decades as a Stenographer, it was but logical that prayer for being paid same pay scale as that of the Junior Stenographer was required to be accepted.

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

While as a broad proposition it could be argued that the Opposite Party No.1 belongs to the cadre of Typist and not that of Stenographer, the fact remains that in this particular case, the evidence placed on record proved his case that his services were utilized only as Stenographer for which he was fully qualified.

¶39

Consequently, the Court is unable to find any legal error having been committed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim of Opposite Party No.1-workman. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such. LCR be returned forthwith.

¶40

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶41

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶42

(Savitri Ratho ) Judge

¶43

S.K. Guin

¶44

Page 6 of 6

Managing Director Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Narayan Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Narayan Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abinas Jena Vs State of Odisha

Shiv Biri Manugacturing Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Bansidhar Beura Vs State of Odisha

Utkal Motors Pvt.Ltd Vs State

Vino Regalia (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Somanath Shastry Vs Chairman,Paradeep P