OBEROI PALAM BEACH HOTEL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER Pradipta Ray, J. - 1. In this writ petition, the management of Oberoi Palm Beach seeks to assail the validity of the award of the Labour Court by which the termination of service of M. Pappa Rao (hereinafter referred to as "opposite party No. 2") as casual utility worker has been held to be illegal and he has been directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages. On the allegation that he (opposite party No. 2) was illegally retrenched with effect from December 15, 1993 without complying with the provisions of section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an industrial dispute was raised on his behalf by the Hotel Oberoi Palm -Beach Employees ' Union. Conciliation failed as the management took the stand that he was engaged for a specific job which was of seasonal nature and as the work was no longer available, he was not given work. The management also took the stand that he was not a workman and as such his disengagement was not retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On consideration of the failure report, the Statel Government referred the dispute to the] Labour Court for adjudication giving rise to the impugned award. The petitioner -management took the stand before the! Labour Court that opposite party No. 2 was? neither a workman nor his disengagement! was a case of retrenchment.

(2.) IT appears from the records of the proceeding before the Labour Court that an ex parte award was passed on April 30, 1999. Upon an application by the management, the said ex parte award was set aside on July 17, 1999. The case was fixed for hearing in the Camp Court at Berhampur, which was to be held on August 30, and 31, 1999. On August 30, 1999 management raised an objection that second party union was not entitled to represent the so -called workman, but the said objection was rejected on the ground that a similar objection was disposed earlier. On behalf of the management adjournment was taken to enable them to move the High Court and to obtain stay order. Since then adjournment was taken from time to time till October 12, 2000, but no stay order could be produced. On October 12, 2000 case was taken up in the Camp Court at Berhampur. It appears from Order No. 51 dated October 12, 2000 that both the parties were present, the opposite party No. 2 examined himself as witness No. W.W.1, but the management simply sent a petition praying for an adjournment stating that stay had been granted by the High Court in O.J.C. No. 13042 of 1999. On such petition case was adjourned and December 22, 2000 was fixed for award. On December 22, 2000 management again sent a telegram that the stay order of the High Court would be sent after the High Court started functioning. Labour Court adjourned the case to February 22, 2001 for award directing the management to produce the stay order in the meantime. Management did not produce any stay order. .Ultimately award was passed on March 19, 2001, which is the subject -matter of challenge as indicated above.

(3.) IN the present case an order under section 17 -B of the Act has already been passed, but the management has not yet complied with the same on the plea that the workman was gainfully employed. We have not postponed the hearing of application under section 17 -B of the Act, but in view of the fact that the industrial dispute is of the year 1993, we have heard the dispute regarding compliance with section 17 -B of the Act as well as the main writ petition challenging the award. We are disposing both by this common judgment.