LAWS(ORI)-2024-2-76

JYOTIRMOY MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On February 28, 2024
JYOTIRMOY MOHAPATRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client is a workman. He made application under Sec. 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By order dtd. 10/8/2023 the labour Court did not compute the salary payable to her client but dismissed the application. She seeks interference. On query from Court she submits, opposite party no.6 is the employer.

(2.) Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

(3.) Mr. Pani, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.6 (management). He submits, there should be no interference with impugned order as petitioner miserably failed to prove his case on facts. He did not work in the months of December, 2021, January and February, 2022. No salaries were payable to him and question of computation of any amount did not arise. There has been no determination on the claim of petitioner having worked for three months. He reiterates, the labour Court did not find satisfaction on proof of the claim of petitioner. In fact the labour Court said that petitioner had admitted his failure to prove.