BHARAMARBAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Second addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 1/1975 of 2000-1995 setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Puri in 2 (C) C. C. No. 14/1994 against the present opposite part No. 2 under section 29 of the Industrial disputes Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner was serving as an employee in Nilachal Service Station, grand Road, Puri, of which opposite party No. 2 is the owner and employer. Opposite Party No. 2 terminated the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner raised an injustiral dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was conciliated by the Labour Officer but was subsequently referred to the Labour Court by the Government of adjudication as to whether the termination of the petitioner was legal and just. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court registered I. D. Case No. 16/1995 and dispose of the same on February 19,1985 answering reference in favour of the petitioner by passing an award indicating that his termination service by opposite party No. 2 is not legal by directed opposite party No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back-wages. The award was communicated to the petitioner well as to opposite party No. 2; and Government of Orissa notified it on August, 1985. The petitioner reported to his duty by opposite party No. 2 did not accept his joining and did not allow him to continue in service. The petitioner approached the Labour commissoner, Orissa and the District Labour Officer, Puri, after making proper inquiry directed opposite part No. 2 to implement to award. Since opposite party No. 2 did not implement the award in spite of such direction prosecution was launched against him under section 29 of the Act. The learned J. M. F. C. on July 29, 1995 convicted opposite part No. under section 29 of the Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2000 in default to undergo S. I. or one month. It was also ordered that opposite part No. 2 would pay a fine of Rs. 50 per day from the date of pronouncement of the judgement in I. D. Case No. 16/1985. Against that judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Puri which was eventually transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri and registered as cri. Appeal No. 1/1975 of 2000/ 1995 and the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions judge after hearing the parties set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the J. M. F. C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(3.) MR. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned J. M. F. C. only on the ground that the award has not been published in the gazette of the Government of Orissa even though there is no specific provision under section 17 of the Act that the award needs to be published in the official gazette. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite part No. 2 submitted that section 17 of the act clearly contemplates that the award has to be published by the State Government. When publication has to be made by the State Government, it has to be made only in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. Counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions relied upon the decisions in Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Others v. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342: 1959-11-LLJ-544, Sirsitk Ltd. etc. v. Government of Andhra pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 160: 1963-II-LLJ-647, Kapra mazdoor Ekta Union v. Management of Birla Cotton spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. , 2005-11-LLJ-271 (SC), Workmen under the Director of Health Services, Orissa v. Director of Health Services, Orissa and Others; I973-I-LLJ-512 and a recent judgment dated September 10, 2007 delivered by a Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 95/2005 Nilachal Service station v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court.