RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER passed by the Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department refusing to refer dispute raised by petitioner for adjudication by the Labour Court as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'act') is assailed in this writ application.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts as projected by the petitioners sans unnecessary details are as follows: Petitioner was working under Turnkey International Limited with effect from 1986 for construction work of Indian Charge Chrome Limited (in short, the 'iccl-opposite party No. 2 ). But when the plant of opposite party No. 2 was established, he was engaged directly under it from the year 1990 as a Hammerman. He was working in the Finished Products Department under supervision of officers of the company. His attendance was being taken by the staff of the company. He was enjoying the benefits extended to employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the 'p. F. Act') and the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, the 'esi Act') as an employee of the company. His services were terminated with effect from March 14, 1992 by way of refusal of employment. He raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer cum-Conciliation Officer, Choudwar, which was admitted for conciliation. ICCL, the opposite party No. 2, was asked to give its views and to participate in the proceedings. In the conciliation proceedings the representative of opposite party No. 2 took the stand that the petitioner was engaged under a contractor namely, M/s. Ojha Technical and he was refused employment due to shortage of raw materials and non-availability of work for the contractor. It was stated that as petitioner was an employee under the Contractor and not under opposite party No. 2, no dispute against it was maintainable. The conciliation failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the State Government. By the impugned order the State in the Labour and Employment Department refused to refer the matter for adjudication by Labour Court. Before such rejection, several representations were made by petitioner to the concerned authorities highlighting long inaction. The ground on which refusal has been directed was that legal remedies are available under Section 33-C (2) of the Act.

(3.) IT is submitted that the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner is not adjudicable in terms of Section 33-C (2) of the Act. In any event the State Government was not competent to form an opinion that there was no case for reference as remedies are available under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. It is highlighted that there is marked distinction between scope and ambit of Section 12 (15) and Section 33c (2) of the Act. Dispute regarding legality and validity of an order of termination can only be decided on a reference being made under Section 12 (15) of the Act.