HAREKRUSHNA PURI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions the order dated 26.12.2008 vide Annexure -1 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Misc. Case No.148 of 2003, has been challenged.

(2.) W .P.(C) No.6287 of 2009 has been filed by the Management of Nilachal Refractories Limited impleading the workman as opposite party, whereas W.P.(C) No.7414 of 2009 has been filed by the workman against the management. Therefore, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the management submits that the present management of the company came into being much after acceptance of VRS application of the workman and, therefore, there is no relationship of employer and workman between the parties and, therefore, the present management is not liable to pay the amount calculated and directed by the Labour Court. It is also submitted by him that since the management came up with fresh VRS scheme and the workman did not offer for the same, the management is not liable to pay. It is also submitted that the dispute of the present nature is not covered within the purview of Section 33 (C) (2) of the I.D. Act. While refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the management, learned counsel for the workman submits that though the application by the workman was filed initially claiming thirteen months VRS dues, subsequently a rejoinder was filed by the workman claiming further unpaid dues and therefore, the Labour Court should have at least calculated the dues till the date of disposal of the I.D. Misc.Case.