ANJAN KUMAR SAHOO Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application the Petitioner has sought to challenge the inaction of Opposite Party No. 1 -the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal in not entertaining the dispute raised by the Petitioners for conciliation with regard to termination of their services and inaction of the State Government to refer the matter directly for adjudication as provided under Section 10(2) of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 read with Rule -3 of the Orissa Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959.

(2.) THE Petitioners' claim is that they were workmen/employees working under M/s. Nilachal Refractories Limited, Dhenkanal and the said company was engaged in the process of manufacturing refractories bricks and other ancillary products. It is asserted that the Petitioner No. 1 - Anjan Kumar Sahoo, who was initially appointed as a Helper in the Despatch Section w.e.f. 4. 1.1982 and thereafter promoted to the post of Supervisor in Inspection & Despatch Section w.e.f. 1. 2.1991 in the scale of pay of Rs. 900 -30 -1200 and continued as such till the company terminated his services on 31.3.2005. Petitioner No. 1 submits that though he had been promoted to the post of Supervisor and continued to do the same clerical job as ha was doing as a Despatch Assistant and that too the said promotion was a mere change of designation/up -gradation.

(3.) IT appears that the review application dated 15.7.2002 was heard by the Minister of State (Industries), Labour and Employment on 19.12.2002 and the same was rejected vide Order Dated 30.12.2002. The Company thereafter initiated a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on 31.1.2003 and while the other Members of Employees/Workmen opted for the said Scheme, the present Petitioners did not opt for the same and are yet to receive their salary from the company. Although the Petitioners have approached the employer several times and gave several joint representations, they are not paid their salary from August, 2002 onwards. It further appears that the Company gave a letter dated . 9.2.2004 vide Annexure -2 stating therein that as the Petitioners did not opt for the VSS though they had bean afforded the said opportunity, they cannot ventilate any grievance for non -payment of salary. In the said letter, the Company indicated that it was their last correspondence on the subject matter and the Petitioners should not expect any reply to any future correspondence and should wait till the verdict/decision of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') in Case No. 8 of 2002 then pending before the BIFR. It was asserted by the Petitioners that though they were regularly going to the factory of the Company and marking their attendance, neither the company assigned any work to them nor paid their admissible legitimate salary and other benefits for which they were constrained to approach the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of their unpaid salary which is pending for adjudication before the said Court.