NARENDRA KUMAR BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 17.12.1998 passed in I.D. Case No. 96 of 1994 by the Learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in dismissing the claim of the Petitioner on the ground of limitation alone is impugned in this Writ Petition. The Petitioner workman was working as Store Keeper on NMR basis continuously from 01.05.1982 to 01.04.1984 under Executive Engineer, Mayurbhanj Irrigation Division, Baripada, District-Mayurbpanj, Opp. Party No. 2. The management without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ("Act" for short) illegally terminated his service. The workman approached the management on several occasions but in vein. Ultimately he raised dispute before the Labour Officer & attempt for conciliation having failed, failure report was submitted. By a reference under clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 10 read with sub-Section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the matter was referred by the appropriate government in Labour & Employment Department vide their Memo. No. 5902(4) dated 12.05.1994 to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication.

(2.) Before the Labour Court the management, Opp. Party No. 2 filed written statement contending that the claim of the workman is barred by law of limitation. It was also urged that the claim of the workman is not tenable in the eye of law as he was retrenched for closure of the work with due prior notice.

(3.) Learned Labour Court on consideration of the materials on record & evidence adduced held specifically that admittedly the workman had worked under the management Opp. Party No. 2 as Store Keeper on NMR basis from 01.05.1982 to 01.04.1984. On the basis of evidence, it was further held that during his termination on 01.04.1984 no compensation or notice pay was paid to the workman. Such a fact of non-payment of compensation/notice pay was also admitted by Management Witness No. 1 in his cross-examination & it was also an admitted fact that the workman held worked for more than 240 days. From the evidence on record, Learned Labour Court came to further specific finding that the management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.