CHOWDHURY G C PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Annexure 5 dated 23rd November, 1966, the District Labour Officer, Cuttack, addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, P. H. D. , Cuttack-2, to pay Rs. 2,250. 00 to opposite party No. 5 from the dues standing to the credit of the petitioner against the Executive Engineer (opposite party No. 4 ). This writ application has been filed to quash this order (Annexure 5), on the allegation that it has not been proved that opposite party No. 5 was a supervisor under the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts are : Opposite party No. 5 filed an application before the Labour Commissioner, Orissa (opposite party No. 2) stating that he was working as a supervisor of the petitioner, and the petitioner did not pay his dues to the tune of Rs. 2,250. 00. This petition was forwarded by the Labour Commissioner to the District Labour Officer, Cuttack, (opposite party No. 3 ). The petitioner was called upon to file his written statement. He filed his written statement, but did not appear on the dates of hearing. Opposite party No. 5 appeared and produced documents in support of his case that he was working as a supervisor under the petitioner. Accepting the case of opposite party No. 5, opposite party No. 3 addressed Annexure 5 to opposite party No. 4 for payment of Rs. 2,250-00 by withholding the same from the bill of the petitioner pending with the Government.

(3.) MR. Harichandan assailed Andexure 5 saying that it does not clearly establish that opposite party No. 5 was a supervisor working under the petitioner; and secondly a 'supervisor' does not come within the definition of 'labour' under the fair-wages clause of the contract. None of these grounds appeals to us. The District Labour Officer is not a Court and is not versed in legal technique. He worked with his common sense in deciding the simple question whether opposite party No. 5 was a supervisor or was working on labour contract under the petitioner. Though no categorical finding was recorded, he proceeded directing payment of Rs. 2,250. 00 to opposite party No. 5 by accepting his case that he was working as a supervisor under the petitioner.