MOHAN CH SAHOO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFUSAL on the part of the Government of Orissa in the Labour and Employment Department to refer a dispute for adjudication vide order dated September 21, 1996, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.

(2.) THE facts involved in this writ application lie in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, they were engaged as nominal muster roll employees under the Executive Engineer, Parajanga Canal Division, Dhenkanal (opposite party No. 2 herein) on different dates in 1981 and continued as such till the year 1990 when they were illegally terminated in utter disregard to the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act' ). Aggrieved therewith, the petitioners had submitted a number of representations to their employer for reinstatement. Their personal approaches having failed to bring about any result, they lodged a petition before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal ventilating their grievance. The record indicates that the matter was taken up for conciliation by the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal. As no settlement could be arrived at between the parties therein, the conciliation proceedings were closed and a failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Act was submitted to the Government. The State Government on a consideration thereof, declined to make a reference by the impugned order which has brought the petitioners to this Court for relief.

(3.) A counter has been filed opposing the writ application. It is the case of opposite party No. 2 that the petitioners were not regular employees, but were working periodically on daily wage basis as and when their services were required and that the petitioners were not retrenched nor was there any order retrenching them from service. On the contrary, they remained absent from work for a long spell and as they did not report to work, the question of allotting them any work did not arise. It is also the case of said opposite party that there was no substantive post lying vacant against which the petitioners could be appointed and that when some of the petitioners made an approach, they were clearly told that there was no merit in their grievance as they were not regular and continuous workers under opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, the prayer is for dismissal of the writ application as no case for making a reference was made out.