SUPERINTENDENT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ application, inter alia, challenging the order dated 23.2.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in Restoration Misc. Case No.17/1994. Admittedly, the workman-opp.party No.3 was an employee under the petitioner-management. His services were terminated w.e.f. 20.3.1991. After failure of conciliation, the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication:-

(2.) Though notice was issued, the first party management did not appear before the Court below. Consequently by order dtd. 30.7.1994 an ex parte award was passed. The order of termination of service of the workman opp.party No.3 w.e.f. 20.3.1991 was held to be neither legal nor justified. Opposite Party No.3 was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages upto date. Thereafter the management filed Misc. Case No.17/1994 praying to set aside the ex parte order. The Labour Court after perusing the materials available came to the finding that the notice had been duly served on the management and there was no reasonable ground to set aside the ex parte order and consequently dismissed the Misc. Case. In this writ application as stated earlier the management is assailing both the order rejecting the Misc. Case for setting aside the ex parte award as well as the award.

(3.) Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the management, forcefully submitted that there were no deliberate laches on the part of the management, but due to certain advertent reasons the management could not appear before the Labour Court. Even otherwise, according to him the management concern is an industry and is a State Government establishment, and as such, the proceeding initiated under the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable.