BHISMARAJ MEHER Vs. DIRECTOR, STATE LABOUR INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition at the instance of the so called workman involves a challenge to the award of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dtd. 5/12/2015 in I.D. Case No.35 of 2014 disfavoring the Petitioner-workman.

(2.) Background of this case appears to be; Petitioner upon becoming successful in an walk-in-interview was engaged as a Chowkidar-cum-Peon in the State Labour Institute-the sole Opposite Party herein at a monthly honorarium of Rs.1500.00 vide the engagement letter dtd. 2/1/2006 (Anexure-2). It is claimed that Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Peon being asked to work 24 hours in a day with a sum of Rs.1500.00 per month. While the matter stood thus Petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Labour and Employment Department who was also then functioning as the Vice Chairman of the State Labour Institute, with a prayer to either increase his remuneration or to allow him to work for eight hours in a day and or even relaxing the working hours to enable himself to take up part time job elsewhere to maintain his livelihood. Petitioner claims that as a consequence of the representation vide Annexure-3 he was favored with a letter dtd. 2/4/2007 with allotment of working hours from 10.A.M. to 5 P.M. with as usual wages vide Annexure-4. Petitioner alleges that immediately after issuing of Annexure-4 in a surprise move on 1/5/2007 he was denied with employment, for which he again made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 on 1/5/2007 on the premises of illegal refusal of employment with effect from 1/5/2007 that too a verbal denial to work. It is claimed that this application was refused to be received by the authority. Petitioner through the communication vide Annexure-6 made a request to allow him to continue to work. In the meantime on the premises of his long absence from duty with effect from 30/3/2007 Petitioner was issued with a show cause. To which Petitioner replied on 2/4/2007. It is here vide Annexure-10 Petitioner was communicated on 9/5/2007 that he had himself abandoned his service. In the meantime on his complain before the Labour authority the matter was taken up for conciliation on 26/9/2007 and vide Annexure-11 Petitioner was communicated with failure of conciliation. In the meantime finding no respite Petitioner under bona fide impression that Government is not taking any positive decision, filed Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.28465 of 2013 for appropriate direction. During pendency of the Writ Petition a reference was made on the issue by the competent authority and the dispute was accordingly registered as I.D. Case No.35 of 2014 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. It is claimed that based on the statement of claim by the alleged workman and the written statement of the Management the Labour Court framed the following issues:-

(3.) Petitioner claims that in the adjudication of dispute the learned Labour Court entered into the evidence by respective parties with marking of documents as Exhibits. Finally through the award dtd. 5/12/2015 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court came to reject the reference on the premises that the proceeding is not maintainable on account of the Management therein doesn9t come within the definition of 'Industry' as per provision; Sec. 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter in short be reflected as 'the I.D. Act, 1947'). Hence this Writ Petition.