DILLIP CHAWDA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman challenges the Award dated August 19, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No.44/92. The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as a Correspondent in the establishment of Eastern Media Limited, Bhubaneswar in August, 1986. He was receiving a salary of Rs. 400.00 per month and besides that he was enjoying other emoluments and was also permitted to avail scooter loan. But then without any rhyme or reason he was retrenched from his service by the management with effect from December 1, 1999. Being aggrieved by such illegal action he raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. After conciliation failed, the State Government in exercise of its power conferred under it under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act, referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore for adjudication:

(2.) The opposite party-management filed its written statement taking the stand that the petitioner was never employed as a Correspondent. He was only working as a Stringer in his spare time and for his work of dispatch of news to "Sambad", an Oriya daily, he was being paid a consolidated amount towards conveyance, postal/telegraphic/ telephone' charges, etc. He was not paid any salary. It was further asserted that journalism was a hobby of the petitioner and he was never in the pay-roll of the management.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed five issues. The parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective cases. After analyzing the entire evidence, the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not an employee under the management. Thus there was no question of termination of service of the petitioner. It further held that there was no reason for reference of the dispute for adjudication under the I.D. Act. It was observed that the management denied that it had retrenched the petitioner fom service at any time and according to the management the petitioner was still continuing as a Correspondent. On the basis of such conclusion the reference was answered in negative.