SANKAR DAS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BHUNESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dismissing the Misc. Case No.58 of 2008 as not maintainable.

(2.) As per the case of petitioner, he was working as a Junior Accountant under the Opp. party-Management. While continuing as such, he applied for casual leave for one day, i.e., 8.2.2006 and it was sanctioned. Due to his illness, he extended his leave from time to time. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the ground that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 5.3.2006 to 4.3.2006 and on some other grounds. The enquiry was conducted ex parte, wherein it was held that the charges were proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority terminated his service with effect from 24.4.2006 without supplying him the copy of enquiry report. The petitioner was served with the order of dismissal on 21.8.2006. As the petitioner was a concerned work man in a pending I.D. Case the Management filed a petition under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for approval of the order of dismissal. The said petition was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.1 of 2006. The Tribunal, vide order dated 8.4.2008 dismissed the said I.D. Misc. Case and did not approve the action of the Management. Being aggrieved with the said order, the Management preferred W.P. (C) No.6715 of 2008 before this Court, wherein a single judge of this Court vide order dated 9.5.2008, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Challenging the said order, the Management preferred Writ Appeal No.97 of 2008 before this Court, wherein it was held as follows:

(3.) On 31.7.2008, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act claiming his wages from 21.8.2006 to 31.7.2008, before the Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No.58 of 2008. Notice was issued to the Management to show cause. In their show cause they contended that the application was not maintainable, particularly since there was no predetermined right in favour of the petitioner; that neither the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) proceeding nor this Court ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and that the order of learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal passed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act was rendered infructuous in view of the order passed on 17.3.2009 by this Court in Writ Appeal No.97 of 2008.