DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORISSA Vs. GOURISANKAR MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation, Berhampur (C) Division seeks to assail the Award dated 30th July, 1996, vide Annexure -11, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No. 54 of 1994.

(2.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 -Gourisankar Misra was admittedly appointed by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (for short OFDC) on daily wage basis. In order to meet the long felt grievance of the daily rated and consolidated workers of the Corporation who were continuously working for a long long time, the Corporation framed a set of rules called 'the Orissa Forest Corporation Daily -rated/Consolidated -rated Workers' Service Rules, 1980' (hereinafter called the 1980 Regularisation Rules). In consonance with the said Rules, an employee who was in continuous service of the Corporation for a period of at least two yeas on daily wage basis was to be regularized in service. Accordingly the service of the opposite party -workman was regularised by Office Order dated 10.1.1991, vide Annexure -5, and he was posted as a Watcher in Chandragiri Sub -division of the Corporation. He worked there till May, 1991 when surprisingly he was intimated orally by the Management that the order as to regularization of his service was cancelled and he would continue on daily -rated basis. Being aggrieved by such action of the Corporation the workman raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation having failed, the State Government in exercise of powers concerned upon it under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication : 'Whether the Management of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Berhampur Commercial Division, Berhampur is justified in cancelling the appointment order of Sri Gouri Shankar Misra in a regular post of Watcher vide Order No. 118, dt. 1.6.1991 ? If not to what relief Shri Misra is entitled ?'

(3.) THE Management on receiving notice had appeared and filed its written statement inter alia taking the stand that the service of the workman had been erroneously regularized and after the same was detected the Corporation cancelled the order regularising his service. According to the Corporation an order passed erroneously could be rectified on detection of the error at any time, and even without observing the paraphernalia.