STATE OF ODISHA Vs. SRI SAMBHUNATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of the management. He submits, impugned is award dtd. 31/3/2016. Opposite party was engaged for two days in a week, amounting to eight days in a month. In the circumstances, he could not be said to have been in continuous service for any period. He draws attention to earlier award dtd. 10/1/2012 on the same order of reference dtd. 8/10/2010 to point out that his client's contention was recorded therein. We extract and reproduce a passage from said award.

(2.) On query from Court he submits, earlier award was set aside without reservation, on the workman having had challenged it in this Court. On remand, impugned award dtd. 31/3/2016 came to be passed. On further query from Court, he is unable to disclose reference to any material in impugned award to substantiate his client's contention that the workman was engaged temporarily and did not work for continuous period of 240 days in the year preceding the reference.

(3.) Mr. Pati, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party workman. He submits, on wrongful termination his client had applied for relief under sec. 17-B, by making application under sec. 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that case, his client obtained relief. The Industrial Dispute was referred by aforesaid order of reference. In the adjudication, the labour Court fell to error by finding resjudicata against his client, in having earlier applied for and obtained relief under sec. 17-B. Hence, his client successfully challenged the award in this Court. It was set aside with direction for re-adjudication on remand. As such, pursuant to self same order of reference dtd. 8/10/2010, impugned award dtd. 31/3/2016 came to be passed.