JAYANTI PATHAGAR, NUAPADA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORRISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks to set aside the award dated 25.06.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in Industrial Dispute Case No. 19 of 1995, wherein the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the opposite party No. 3 in O.J.C. No. 395 of 2000 along with payment of all back wages. In W.P. (C) No. 10081 of 2003, the petitioner-Management namely, Jayanti Pathagar prays that the order passed by the aforesaid Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 28 of 2002 on 19.5.2003 under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- in compliance to section 17B of the Act as per the interim orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid O.J.C. is to be set aside. Opposite party No. 3 claimed that he was appointed as an Office Assistant by the Management and he worked as such from 1.4.1988 till 30.6.1989 without any break, after which he was removed from employment without complying with section 25F of the Act.

(2.) A written statement of the claim has been filed by the first party management, wherein it is pleaded that the Jayanti Pathagar is a voluntary organization having no profit motive. It is not an 'industry' as defined under the Act. In the year 1988, it received grant-in-aid from the Government of India to implement the Non-Formal-Education project and to give effect to the said project the second party was appointed as an Office Assistant on monthly honorarium of Rs. 1200/-, Initially, it is pleaded that he was appointed for a specific term which was due to expire on 31.8.1988, but subsequently it was extended upto 31.5.1989. The project was scheduled to be completed by 31.5.1989. The workman continued there beyond 31.5.1989. On 10.6.1989 he was arrested by the police in connection with participation in a demonstration against a religious procession. Following the arrest, he was directed by the Management to explain his conduct vide its letter dated 23.6.1989. He did not accept the letter. Under such circumstances, his services were terminated with effect from 30.6.1989. There was a police case against the workman for the said demonstration. In the year 1992 he was acquitted by the Court. Thereafter, he approached the Management for his reinstatement, but the Management declined to appoint him as the scheme was already completed.

(3.) On these pleadings, the learned Presiding Officer cast the following issues: