NILACHAL SERVICE STATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Industrial Dispute was raised by opposite party No.2 -workman with regard to the propriety or otherwise of termination of his service by the Management of . Nilachal Service Station, the petitioner, in the present writ application. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference read as follows: - 'Whether the termination of service of Shri Bhramabar Das by the Management of . Nilachal Service Station (Indian Oil Petrol Pump), Grand Road, Puri is legal and/ or justified ? If not to what relief Shri Das is entitled ?'

(2.) WHILE matter stood thus, the Management filed a Misc. Case before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar praying to set aside the ex parte award dated 25.11.1989 alongwith a petition for condonation of delay. By order dated 16.3.91 the Presiding Officer on verification of the records did not accept the plea taken by the Management that it did not receive notice of the case. Consequently, the application filed for condonation of delay was rejected and so also the ex parte order passed on 25.11.89. It also appears that in the year 1991 the petitioner had approached this Court in OJC No.2685 of 1991, inter alia, challenging the order passed by Labour Court on the basis of the petition filed Under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. A division bench of this Court by order dated 11.12.1991 dismissed the said writ application observing as follows: - 11.12.1991. Though notice of admission has been issued in this case, after hearing Mr. Kar for the petitioner and Mr. Das for opposite party No. l and on perusal of the records we do not find any justification for our interference in the impugned order dated 16.3.1991. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has found that n the proceeding Under Section 33 -C(2), the petitioner refused to receive notice and avoid to attend the Court. This statement of the Labour Court is borne out by the service returns of the postal authorities. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for interference with the order dated 16.3.91. This application is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.'

(3.) ON receiving rule a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2 -workman strongly repudiating the averments made in the writ application. It is averred that the award passed in the year 1985 has attained finality and cannot be avoided and/or set aside after lapse of more than a decade. It is averred that the notice of the Industrial Dispute Case was duly served on the Management and only with an avowed oblique motive of harassing the poor workman it did not appear in Court and allowed the Industrial Dispute Case to proceed ex parte and as such it is estopped by its conduct to challenge the ex parte order. It is further submitted that the award has worked out and a portion of the wages having already been paid, the Management is also estopped from making prayer to set aside the award which has already worked out.