NARENDRA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of an award dtd. 29/10/2004 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.275 of 1995 by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, whereby a reference made by the Labour and Employment Department under Sec. 12(5) read with Clause (d) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' in short) has been answered against the petitioner-workman.

(3.) The brief facts of the case which emerge from the materials on record are that the petitioner claimed that he was working under the management of Horticulturist, Bhubaneswar ('Management' in short) on Nominal Muster Roll ('NMR' in short) basis from 1/7/1984 to 28/2/1990 upon a verbal engagement made by the Management. With a case that his service was illegally terminated, he raised an industrial dispute by making an application on 21/7/1993 against the refusal of his employment. A reference was made, after failure of the conciliation proceedings, by the State Government as noted above by Memo No.11291(5)/LE dtd. 25/8/1995, for adjudication of dispute to the Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar. The following was the term of reference: