LAWS(ORI)-2004-3-19

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ESSAR Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR RAUL

Decided On March 08, 2004
Chief Executive Officer Essar Appellant
V/S
Prakash Kumar Raul Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a public limited company, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Bhubaneswar, (hereinafter called 'the Labour Court') in Tr. I.D. Case No. 330 of 2001 deciding two preliminary issues and finding that O.P. No. 1 is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' hereinafter) and that since the cause action arose within the State of Orissa, the Labour Court at Orissa had jurisdiction to answer the reference made by the appropriate Government, i.e., the Government of India (Ministry of Labour).

(2.) THE short facts necessary for decision in the present writ petition may be stated thus : The petitioner, which is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, is engaged in oil exploration and drilling operations by entering into contracts with Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Oil India Limited, etc. for the purpose of drilling oil in the Arbian Seas, Bombay High Seas, etc. The petitioner for execution of its contracts engaged O.P. No. 1 (hereinafter described as the opposite party) as a Radio Officer on its rigs on contract basis by letter dated 9.3.1994 (Annexure 1). It is stated that after completion of its drilling project/work at Bay of Bengal, Paradeep Coast, during November December, 1996, as there was no work available with the petitioner, by a telegram dated 10.4.1997 (Annexure 2) the petitioner informed the opposite party that his services stood terminated with effect from 10.4.1997 and his dues would be settled shortly. By letter dated 25.4.1997 the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 33,045/ to the opposite party towards his legal dues at his residential address.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order dated 15.4.2002 of the Apex Court, the Labour Court by its order dated 19.8.2002 (Annexure 4), which is impugned in this writ petition, decided the two preliminary issues framed by the Supreme Court holding that the present opposite party was a 'workman' within the definition given in the Industrial Disputes Act and that as the order of termination of his service was served on him when he was working in Orissa, the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. While deciding the issue whether the 2nd party, i.e., the present O.P., was a workman, the Labour Court held that as the Management, i.e., the present petitioner, had described the 2nd party Prakash Kumar Raul as workman before the Labour Court, the Apex Court as also in the High Court, the Management could not now take the plea that he was not a workman. While deciding the 2nd issue, the Labour Court held that as the first party Management had throughout taken the stand that the Govt. of India was the competent authority to make the reference, and since the Govt. of India has made the reference to the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar, the Labour Court at Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction to answer the reference.