BABULI MAHARANA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman-petitioner has filed this application assailing the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 16.08.1993 in Industrial Dispute Case No.38 of 1990 in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner as bad. It further held that since his reinstatement will be more dangerous for the Management-opposite party no.2, no back wages and retrenchment compensation would be paid to him but looking to his length of service at least from 1981 to 1988 directed for payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three months from the date of award.

(2.) The short fact of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper by the Management-opposite party no.2 and subsequently he became Melter Mistry. He joined in the service sometimes in the year 1978. On 03.07.88 in one Sunday, the factory was closed and the workman went to his sister's house but could not return on the next day as he fell ill. He remained under the treatment of Asst. Surgeon, Zonal Dispensary, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar from 04.07.88 to 09.07.88. On 10.07.88 he came to Jagatpur and by that time he was not cured fully. Then he remained under the treatment of the Medical Officer Mini E.S.I. Dispensary, Jagatpur and obtained the medical certificate from Bhubaneswar. On 19.07.88 he became fit to resume duty and obtained fitness certificate from E.S.I. Dispensary, but the Management-opposite party no.2 refused to accept his joining report and informed him that his services had already been terminated. Then the workman-petitioner approached the management to allow him to work but nothing was decided. He raised the industrial dispute regarding illegal termination of his services. The management subsequently issued notice indicating that he had already absconded from duties, his disorderly conduct, misbehavior and his act of violence. It is also stated that his services were terminated with effect from 16.08.88. But while terminating the services, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. Because of raising anindustrial dispute by the petitioner-workman, the conciliation proceeding was initiated and it was ended with failure. Then the matter was referred by the State Government to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute. On being noticed, opposite party no.2-management filed its written statement. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed following issues: (i) Whether the reference is maintainable? (ii) Whether the termination of services of Shri Babuli Maharana with effect from 19.07.88 by the management of M/s. Globe Allumunium Industries Private Limited is legal and/or justified? (iii) To what relief the workman is entitled?

(3.) In the written statement while admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981, the management has disputed his joining with effect from 1978. It is stated in the written statement that it is a Private Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act and is a small scale Alluminium Industry having 20 to 25 workmen in different categories. The workman was employed as Helper in the year 1981. He has never completed 240 days of continuous work during any calendar year. The workman-petitioner used to assault, abuse the co-workers under the influence of liquor and never attended his duty regularly. He misbehaved with the Director and his day to day behaviour was intolerable. Finding no other way out, the services of the petitioner was terminated as per the provisions of Model Standing Orders.