STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GOPINATH RANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the award passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.37 of 1994 dtd.31.12.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar whereby and where under the award has been answered in favour of the workmen.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner, State of Orissa is that the award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 21.11.1997 arising out of reference made by the Government in exercise of power conferred upon them by Sec.12(5) read with Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The petitioner ­ State of Orissa had filed writ petition before this court being O.J.C. No.5161 of 1998, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dtd.25.3.2004 this court has set aside the award and remanded back the matter with a direction to re -hear after giving adequate opportunity to the parties and accordingly the award has been passed on 31st December 2005 which is under challenge on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence on record and passed on incorrect appreciation of law. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration the document produced regarding the fact that the workmen were not engaged conditionally for 240 days within 12 calendar months, the workmen were engaged for a specific period and when engagement was temporary in nature and the case clearly covered by Sections 2 -(00)(bb) and Sections 2(00) and 25 -F will be applicable in the case of opposite parties. The Government Department of Irrigation is not an Industry rather it is part of the sovereign function of the State and as such the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are not applicable.

(3.) While on the other had the case of opposite party ­ workmen is that they had been engaged as N.M.Rs. and D.L.Rs. employees by the petitioner Management under different irrigation programmes which includes construction and maintenance of irrigation channels, maintenance and watch and ward of river embankment during flood time, etc. and for such work there is regular engagement of N.M.R. and D.L.R. employees by the petitioner but they have illegally been retrenched which led them to raise an objection, on failure the dispute has been referred before the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication being reference case No.37 of 1994. They have submitted that there is no infirmity in the award, rather the Tribunal after going through the various evidence adduced by the management as well as the workmen has came to a conscious finding that they have worked for 240 days and thereby after appreciating the fact that the provision of Section 25(b) has been violated, hence the award has been passed answering the reference in favour of the workmen.