PRAMOD KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal has been filed by the Appellant seeking to challenge the order and Judgment dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 2307 of 2007 whereby, Learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ application filed by the present Appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court finding no impropriety or illegality in the said A ward.

(2.) MR . D.P. Mohanty, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 33C(1) and 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') are distinct and separate from each other. Accordingly, he submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to properly interpret the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal C. Ltd. Bararee Colliery Dhanbad v. Rameshwar and Ors. AIR 1968 SC 218. Learned Counsel submitted that Section 33C(2) of the Act, had been enacted for quick and speedy remedy and for calculation or determination of benefit by the Tribunal. In this respect, Learned Counsel has submitted that the Petitioner had worked continuously from the year 1995 to 2003 for the Opposite Party No. 2 and in z to substantiate such fact, he had filed exhibit under Annexures -1 to 7 before the Learned Single Judge which according to him have not taken into consideration.

(3.) THE aforesaid findings of the Labour Court have been taken note of and has been extracted by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order. On a query from this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not produce any document to satisfy the aforesaid requirements of law. On the other hand, Learned Counsel sought to place reliance upon Annexures 1 to 7 of the writ application in order to justify his claim.