NABAGHANA DALAI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged order dtd. 31/3/2018 passed by the Labour Court in ID Misc. Case no.12 of 2015 on contention that the order is illegal. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on his behalf and submits, firstly, his client had no connection with the workmen. There was no employer-employee relationship. His client being a local person was engaged by the contractor to supervise the work. The workmen cannot claim wages from his client. Secondly and without prejudice, there was no computation made. Ext.3 in the proceeding, relied upon by the Labour Court, has nothing to do with the workmen inasmuch as there is no mention of all or any of them in the document. As such, reliance by the Labour Court on it was reliance or irrelevant evidence. He seeks interference.

(2.) Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears for the workmen including opposite party nos.4, 16, 17 and 19. Opposite party no.43 is the contractor, who was deleted by the Labour Court and, Mr. Mohapatra submits, has repeatedly avoided service of the writ petition. In this context paragraphs 2 and 3, from our order dtd. 9/2/2024 are reproduced below.

(3.) Mr. Rath submits, the Labour Court relied on cogent evidence being 'Chukti Patra' dtd. 1/9/2014 carrying clear admission by petitioner that Rs.13,41,772/- in aggregate was payable to the workmen. This document could not be impeached by petitioner in the proceeding before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, there should not be interference in judicial review.