PRASANNA KUMAR BISWAL Vs. RAM BALI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the award dtd. 23/12/2016 passed in I.D. Case No.30 of 2014, has approached this Court. Vide the said impugned award, though the Labour Court answered issue no.1 in favour of the petitioner workman holding that the termination of services of the petitioner workman by the present opposite party management no.1, without compliance of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shortly, I.D. Act, 1947, is illegal and unjustified, while answering issue no.2, as to what relief the petitioner workman is entitled to, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,10,000.00 to be just and proper with an observation that the opposite party management no.1 has no work under the opposite party management no.2.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention here that one of his co-workman namely, Salila Pradhan was also illegally retrenched from service in a similar manner on the same date i.e. on 1/9/2013. Both the petitioner and Salila Pradhan raised industrial disputes separately. Because of inaction of the Conciliation Officer to conclude the said proceeding within the stipulated time, both of them directly approached Labour Court, Bhubaneswar separately in terms of the provision enshrined under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act, 1947' for brevity. The complaint of the present petitioner workman was registered as I.D. Case No.30 of 2014, whereas the complaint lodged by his co-workman Salila Pradhan was registered as I.D. Case No.03 of 2015.

(3.) The case of the present petitioner workman and his co-workman being same and similar and the employer of both of them being same, so also the cause of action being same, both of them filed identical claim statements in their respective complaints. In response to the said claim statements filed by both of them, the present opposite party management no.1 also filed written statement with identical stand and pleadings.