SALILA PRADHAN Vs. RAM BALI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the award dtd. 23/12/2016 passed in I.D. Case No.03 of 2015, 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.1,60,000.00 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.) As per the statement of claim filed by the petitioner workman before Labour Court, he was engaged as 'Fitter' w.e.f. 30/6/2008 under the opposite party management no.1, a contractor, in the establishment of the opposite party no.2-employer. Having employee gate number and coverage under the Employees Provident Fund, he was discharging his duty sincerely, honestly, with full dedication. The opposite party management no.1 had issued a gate pass to the petitioner workman, which was extended from time to time. Though the petitioner workman maintained a clean service record having no adverse remark, all of a sudden, on 31/8/2013, without any reason, the opposite party management no.1 terminated his service by way of refusal of employment. There was no prior notice to the petitioner workman nor he was paid retrenchment compensation prior to such refusal of employment. The opposite party management no.1 has undertaken work from construction period of M/s OSWAL Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd, which was taken over by the M/s IFFCO Ltd., Paradeep, opposite party management no.2.

(3.) Being noticed, the opposite party management no.1 appeared and filed its written statement. Apart from taking various technical pleas as to maintainability of reference, it was pleaded that it is a registered Contractor of the present opposite party management no.2, which is a necessary party to the said reference, being the principal employer. The reference is bad for non-impleadment of management of IFFCO as a party. A stand was also taken in the written statement that the contract of the management was only for one year, which was signed on 4/9/2012 and the same was operative till 3/9/2013 and thereafter, the contract was not extended. Therefore, the termination/retrenchment of the petitioner workman is not coming under the definition of 'retrenchment' in view of Sec. 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Time to time agreements were signed between the opposite party management no.1 and the management no.2 and the last agreement signed in the said regard was on 4/9/2012 for one year. Thereafter, the said agreement was not further extended and expired from the month of September, 2013. It is also the stand of the opposite party management no.1, it issued a notice on 26/8/2013 to the workman and copy of the said notice was also marked to the Secretary of Employees' Union, District Labour Office, Jagatsinghpur, DGM Security and the opposite party management no.2, indicating therein that there is no pending work, therefore 53 employees were retrenched w.e.f. 1/9/2013. It was also informed to all the employees to collect their final dues up to 31/8/2013 from the opposite party management no.1.