JADUMANI PATRA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (workman). He submits, mining lease was valid till year 2012. On expiry of the lease the management did not obtain renewal. However, his client continued to be engaged by the management and in year 2016 orally was told that his services were terminated. On his client having had approached the union, representation was made. His client ultimately raised dispute under sec. 2A (2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) Impugned award dtd. 28/5/2018 is perverse for finding without basis that his client's claim was barred by limitation.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 (management). He submits, the workman had raised dispute after much delay. He had never offered himself for employment from 4/11/2009.