Dismissed¶¶41

Kumar Motors Pvt.Ltd. v. P.O.Labour Court

Orissa HC20 Mar 2025WP(C)/16360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.16360 of 2018; Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pune v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar; Orissa High Court, Cuttack; decided 20.03.2025; K.R. Mohapatra and Sanjay Kumar Mishra, JJ.; Section 33-C(2) and Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Articles 226 and 227; workman status; State Head Odisha-Jharkhand; marketing professional; three-wheeler auto rickshaw dealer; unpaid salary December 2015 to March 2016; Rs.2,99,000/-; litigation expenses Rs.15,000/-; total Rs.3,14,000/-; interest 6% per annum; claim Rs.3,91,365/-; realization certificate Letter No.4204 dated 02.07.2024; Labour Commissioner Odisha; finality; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioner; the impugned order under Annexure-1 was left undisturbed and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶¶41

Kumar Motors Pvt.Ltd. Vs P.O.Labour Court — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Petitioner; the impugned order under Annexure-1 was left undisturbed and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether Opposite Party No.2 is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the nature of the duties he discharged. +2 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

The Petitioner-Management, though claiming that Opposite Party No.2 was not a Workman, did not produce any document before the Labour Court in support of its case; on the materials on record and the nature of the job discharged, the Labour Court's finding that Opposite Party No.2 was a Workman was left undisturbed.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Labour Court's scrutiny of records, this Court found Opposite Party No.2 entitled to Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary for the period December 2015 to March 2016; his claim towards outstanding tour bills failed for want of supporting materials.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

The objection to the award of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses was not entertained, since the Labour Commissioner, Odisha had already issued a certificate for realization of the amount directed by the Labour Court and the impugned order had attained finality.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (K.R. Mohapatra and Sanjay Kumar Mishra, JJ.) dismissed a writ petition by Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure-1) of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.105 of 2016, passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing payment of Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary (December 2015 to March 2016) and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses (total Rs.3,14,000/-) to its former employee (Opposite Party No.2), with interest @ 6% per annum on default. The management's plea that the employee, engaged as State Head (Odisha and Jharkhand)/marketing professional drawing Rs.74,750/- per month, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) was rejected, the management having produced no document in support. The objection to the litigation-expenses component was also declined because a certificate for realization (Letter No.4204 dated 02.07.2024) had already been issued by the Labour Commissioner, Odisha and the impugned order had attained finality.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018

¶5

(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) *****

¶6

Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pune -VersusPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another Advocates appeared:

¶7

…… Petitioner -VersusPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party No.1) Mr. Amit Kumar Maity, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2)

¶8

CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶9

-----------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 20.03.2025 ----------------------------------------------

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

By the Bench;

¶12

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 30^th December, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in

¶14

W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 1 of 5

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.105 of 2016, whereby a direction has been issued to pay the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary for the months of December, 2015 to March, 2016 and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- ( in total Rs.3,14,000/-). It is also directed that if the amount, as above, is not paid within a period of two months, then the Workman will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum until payment is made.

¶19

3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the PetitionerManagement submits that the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 was working as State Head of Odisha and Jharkhand under the Petitioner-Management. During the period of probation, he could not achieve the target, for which his services were terminated. The Opposite Party No.2 is not a Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) in view of the nature of duty, he was discharging. The Opposite Party No.2 has not filed any document with regard to his salary as well as entitlement. Learned Labour Court without considering the case of the Management-Petitioner in its proper perspective, has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside.

¶20

4. Mr. Maity, learned counsel submits that the WorkmanOpposite Party No.2 was working as Marketing Professional and was visiting door to door to persuade the customers for purchase of three wheelers Auto Rickshaw, of which the Petitioner-

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 2 of 5

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Management was the dealer. His gross salary was Rs.74,750/per month. The Opposite Party No.2, before his termination, was not paid salary from December, 2015 till March, 2016. He also filed Ext.1, which disclosed his nature of duty. Considering the same, learned Labour Court exercising power under Section 33-C (2) of the Act passed the impugned order under Annexure1. Since the impugned order is a reasoned one, it needs no interference.

¶26

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Opposite Party No.2Workman was under employment of Petitioner-Management since 5^th October, 2015. He had filed Ext.1, which disclosed his nature of duty and salary. From Ext.1, it appears that Opposite Party No.2 was drawing a salary of Rs.74,750/- per month. In Paragraph-4 of the impugned order under Annexure-1, learned Labour Court on scrutiny of records held that it is not in dispute that the Workman-Opposite Party No.2 was working from 5^th October, 2015 till March, 2016. From the record, it also appears that the Opposite Party No.2 was not paid salary for the months from December, 2015 till his termination in March, 2016.

¶27

6. The Petitioner-Management though claimed that the Opposite Party No.2 was not a Workman, but did not produce any document before learned Labour Court in support of its case. Thus, considering the materials on record and the nature of job he (the Opposite Party No.2) was discharging, learned Labour

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 3 of 5

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

Court came to hold that the Opposite Party No.2 was a Workman.

¶33

7. Although the Opposite Party No.2-Workman has claimed a sum of Rs.3,91,365/- towards his unpaid wages and outstanding tour bills, but he could not produce any materials in support of his unpaid tour bills. Thus, learned Labour Court on scrutiny of records held that the Opposite Party No.2 is entitled to Rs.2,99,000/- towards unpaid salary for the period from December, 2015 to March, 2016.

¶34

8. Further, learned Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, objects to the same submitting that learned Labour Court being a creature of the statute (the Act), cannot grant such a relief, which is beyond the scope of Section 33-C (2) of the Act.

¶35

9. From the record, it appears that learned Labour Commissioner, Odisha vide Letter No.4204 dated 2^nd July, 2024 has already issued certificate for realization of the amount, as directed by learned Labour Court. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-1 has attained its finality. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the objection raised by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner in respect of litigation expenses.

¶36

10. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-1.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 16360 OF 2018 Page 4 of 5

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:51:32

¶40

// 5 //

¶41

11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

¶43

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶44

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶45

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 20^th March, 2025/Madhusmita