MANAGEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), E.H.T.CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, BERHAMPUR, DIST GANJAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management seeks to challenge the award dated 26.10.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in Industrial Dispute Case No.26 of 1998.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No.3 -workman, alleged that he was appointed as an N.M.R. employee under the Junior Engineer, Electrical, E.H.T. Construction Section, Aska, which was under the administrative control of the petitioner -Management. He worked continuously from 1.1.1982 to 27.1.1982. Thereafter without any rhyme and reason and without observing the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), his name was struck off from the Roll, which amounts to retrenchment. It is further averred that the employees who were junior to him were allowed to continue in service and also some new employees were engaged after his retrenchment. On the basis of a petition filed, a conciliation proceeding was initiated by the Labour Court. The conciliation having failed, on being moved, the Government in exercise of the powers vested upon it under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act referred the dispute to the Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore for decision. The reference reads as follows : - "Whether the action of the Management of the Executive Engineer (Elect.) E.H.T. Construction Division, Berhampur in terminating the services of Sri Simanchal Gouda w.e.f. 28.1.1986 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Gouda is entitled -

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, four issues were framed. Under Issue No.1, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman established that he had worked continuously from 1.1.1982 to 28.1.1986. Under Issue No.2, the Labour Court held that the allegation that the workman abandoned the employment could not be established by the Management. Issue Nos.3 and 4 regarding question of maintainability, were answered in favour of the workman as the Management did not raise any objection.