MANAGING DIRECTOR ORISSA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar holding refusal employment to the opposite party No. 3 as illegal and unjustified and directing reinstatement of the opposite patty No. 3 to the post of Typist with all benefits of continuity of service and full back wages is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the opposite patty No. 3 was engaged in different spells from 11 1 87 to 15 11 89 atBhawanipatna, Jeypore and Rayagada on daily wage basis. The opposite party No. 3 bad put in 177 days of work but was paid wages for 234 days including wages for holidays and Sundays during the entire period of engagement and was retrenched from service w.e.f. 14 11 89. Dispute raised by opposite party No. 3 was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by the impugned award held that the refusal of employment to opposite party No, 3 is neither legal nor justified and further directed reinstatement of opposite party No. 3 in service with benefit of continuity of service and full back wages. Said award of the Labour Court is challenged on the ground that at no point of time the opposite party No. 3 had completed 240 working days and therefore termination of services of the opposite party No. 3 by way of refusal of employment with effect from 15 11 89 by the Divisional Manager of the petitioner Corporation is legal and justified.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence on record clearly prove that the opposite party No. 3 at no point of time had completed 240 working days within 12 months preceeding date of termination/refusal of further employment and therefore he is neither entitled for notice nor compensation as required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court calculated the working days to be 240 days without any basis and illegally answered the reference in favour of theopposite party No. 3. He further submitted that from the records it is evident that the opposite party No. 3 had put in 177 days of work as against which he had been paid wages for 234 days, which includes wages paid on holidays and Sundays and therefore the opposite party No. 3 having not completed 240 days he was not entitled to any notice or retrenchment benefits. Shri Das, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the opposite party No. 3 had been continuously engaged from 11 1 87 till 15 11 89 in three different places and was in continuous service for the aforesaid period. Apart from the said fact, the opposite party No. 3 had also completed 240 working days in the year 1987, 1988 as well as in 1989 Therefore, refusal of employment which amounted to termination/retrenchment is illegal as admittedly neither any notice was given to the opposite party No. 3 nor any compensation was paid.