BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2000 passed by the learned Single Jude in O.J.C. No. 16363 of 1998 affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 19.8.1998 in I.D. Case No. 85 of 1994 urging various legal grounds.

(2.) The brief facts for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions of the case and to find out as to whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this case for reconsideration of the matter and the interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court respectively are that the Appellant herein was a workman. On the recommendation of his name by the Principal of I.T.I., Puri, to undergo apprenticeship training and on being selected he took training from 21.11.1985 to 21.11.1986 with the Respondent's Corporation (hereinafter called "Corporation") and received monthly stipend. After completion of the apprenticeship training, the Appellant requested the aforesaid Corporation to allow him to work on casual basis from 1.2.1988 till 30.9.1988 i.e. for 243 days. During his casual employment, on signing the payment slips he was getting his remuneration as an NMR worker. However, the Appellant's service was terminated by the Corporation of 30th September, 1988 on the of an oral order without any prior notice. Thereafter dispute arose with regard to the termination of the Appellant's service and to settle the dispute, the Asst. Labour Officer, Puri initiated conciliation proceeding and in that conciliation proceeding the Executive Engineer of the Corporation agreed to pay the retrenchment benefit of the workman, but the Appellant refused to accept the same and insisted for his re-engagement as NMR. Thereafter, reference was made to the Labour court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the existing industrial disputes and accordingly I.D. Case No. 85 of 1994 was registered. In that Bijay Kumar Sahoo v. CESCO (V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.) case, the parties filed their written statement in justification of their claims and counter claims. The Labour Court answered the question against the Appellant-workman rejecting the relief as prayed for. Against the order passed by the Labour court, the Appellant herein full O.J.C. No. 16363 of 1998, in which the learned Single Judge affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order or termination of the services of the Appellant it is a retrenchment as defined under Section 200 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and his appointment does not attract 2(00) (bb) of the Act and therefore he had invoked his statutory right under Section2A of the Act and there was non-compliance of Section 25F read with Section 25K of Chapter -V-B and 25N of the Act in not obtaining prior permission of the State Government, the action of the Respondent-employer ( hereinafter called as the employer in short) does not tantamount to misconduct. Since the mandatory and statutory requirements of the above provisions of the Act was not followed and therefore the order of termination/ retrenchment is void abinitio in law and hence the same should have set aside and passed order of reinstatement with consequential benefits.