MANAGEMENT, D.F.O. Vs. ARAKHITA CH. SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the Management challenging the award dated 07.11.2003, passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in I.D. Case No. 24 of 1993, holding the termination of the services of the workman -opposite party with effect from 10.08.1991 by the petitioner -Management, is neither legal nor justified and directing reinstatement of the workman with a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/ - in lieu of the back wages.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State appearing for the petitioner -Management submits that as the opposite party -workman was engaged as Depot Agent under the Management under a scheme, which was winded up with effect from March, 1991 and the said work was assigned to Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, there was no possibility on the part of the Management to re -engage the workman under the said scheme in the establishment of the Management. It is further submitted that two other employees, who were in the establishment of the management as Watcher and Jr. Clerk have been allowed to continue to work on the basis of the interim order granted by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack and therefore the workman -opposite party cannot claim any parity. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the scheme under which the workman was employed has been winded up and the said work has been assigned to Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, there is no scope for reinstatement of the workman under the petitioner -Management. Learned counsel appearing for the workman -opposite party submits that the petitioner -Management have already complied with part of the impugned award by paying him Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation in lieu of the back wages and therefore they are estopped from assailing the said award in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the two other employees, namely, Tirthabasi Sahoo and Ramesh Chandra Mohanty, who were junior to him and working in the same depot have been allowed to continue in service and have subsequently been regularized, even after alleged winding up of the scheme. From the impugned order it is seen that the State Government referred the dispute raised by the workman to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication which reads as under:

(3.) ON a perusal of the impugned award it is also seen that the learned Labour Court has taken into consideration the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and has come to find that the workman -opposite party had worked in the establishment of the Management since 1983 to 1991. Learned Labour Court has further found that the Management while terminating the services of the petitioner has not given any prior notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation, which is in violation of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act.