ORISSA RENEWABLE ENERGY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in O. J C. No. 17623 of 1997 in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

(2.) BEREFT of all the unnecessary details, the facts as spelt from the inter se pleadings are as followed : On the basis of a report of the Conciliation Officer cum Assistant Labour Officer, Puri, the Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department was satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the Management of the Orissa Renewable Energy Development Agency, Bhubaneswar and its workman Shri Dhirendra Mohan Patnaik, respondent No. 3 & in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (5) of section 12 read with clause (d) of sub section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 considered it expedient to refer for adjudication of the dispute specified in the schedule to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Bhubaneswar. For the sake of brevity, the schedule is quoted below :

(3.) IN course of the trial, the workman examined himself as a witness and exhibited two documents. The management, however, neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced anydocumentary evidence. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court came to a categorical finding that the workman who had undergone stitching machine trainining from 12 10 1987 to 7 11 1987 was engaged for imparting training to different persons who had purchased leaf stitching machines at the Block level. It was further held that the workman continued in service for more than 240 days in one calendar year without any interruption. The management admitted that the workman was directed to impart training from 14 2 1988 for a minimum period of two months. It also admitted that the workman was imparting training for more than two years, i. e. from 18 2 1988 till 30 4 1990 in other Blocks besides Khaparakhol Block, for which the workman was deputed by the management by a written order. The plea that the workman was engaged only during 1987 and thereafter his engagement was discontinued was not proved by the management either by adducing oral or documentary evidence. The Labour Court arrived at a categorical finding that, on the circumstances, non engagement of the workman by the management since 30 4 1990 amounts to termination of service in the eye of law, and directed that the workman should be reinstated in service within one month from the date of notification of the award with full back wages from 4 11 1991 (i.e. the date on which petition was filed by the workman with all ancillary benefits, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation, As has been stated earlier, the said order was impugned before this Court in O. J. C. No. 17623 of 1997. This Court after hearing the parties by order dated 6 9 2000 dismissed the writ petition observing as follows :