LAWS(ORI)-2009-6-8

OFDC, LTD Vs. BHABABNI SANKAR DAS

Decided On June 25, 2009
Ofdc, Ltd Appellant
V/S
Bhababni Sankar Das Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management - Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') is the petitioner in this writ petition and has called in question the Order dated March 18, 2006 vide Annexure -1 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in Misc. Case No. 1/2005 filed by the Opp. Party No. I. The said application was filed under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') claiming monetary benefits, which he alleged to be entitled to from the Management towards his salary, provident fund etc. from August, 2003, onwards as mentioned in the statement appended to the application under Section 33 -C(2) of the Act, along with the enhanced arrear D.A. with effect from July 2000 to August, 2003.

(2.) THE facts in nut -shell are that the Opp. Party No. 1 while working as Field Assistant, Turumunda Sal seed Purchase Centre of Keonjhar (C -KL) Division of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. along with 71 other employees was transferred to Bhubaneswar (C) Division by office order No. 132 dated July 19, 2003 of the General Manager, O.F.D.C. Ltd. It is alleged by the Management that pursuant to the transfer order, as the Opp. Party No. 1 did not hand over the charge and left his place of work after receipt of the said transfer order on July 19, 2003, he was relieved from Keonjhar Division by order of the Divisional Manager dated August 20, 2003 under Annexure -3 to the Writ Petition. He was also paid Rs. 3105 and Rs. 640 on August 20, 2003 as advance salary and T.A. advance to join in his new place of posting. The Opp. Party No. 1 did not receive the relieving order which was sent to his home address as he was not staying in his place of work and the same was returned unserved with a postal remark 'refused' as at Annexure -4. Thus, it was stated that the Opp. Party No. 1 avoided to receive the relieving order and did not join in his new place of posting nor has performed any duty from August 20, 2003 onwards. While remaining unauthorizedly absent, the Opp. Party No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Labour Officer, Keonjhar with regard to non -payment of salary for that period vide Annexure -5, On receipt of the complaint/notice from the Assistant Labour Officer, Keonjhar, a reply was submitted on behalf of the Management - O.F.D.C. Ltd. explaining the position that the Opp. Party No. 1 after being relieved has not joined in his new place of posting. No conciliation proceeding has been taken up on the said complaint as yet. When the matter was thus pending, the Opp. Party No. 1 filed W.P.(C) No. 12026/2003 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on July 23, 2004. This Court considering the facts of the case permitted the Opp. Party No. 1 herein by the aforesaid order to withdraw the Writ Petition and approach the Managing Director by way of representation highlighting all his grievances as made out in the Writ Petition within a period of the month from the date of the said order and further directed the Managing Director to take a decision on such representation of the Opp. Party No. 1 within a period of one month after receiving the same. The Opp. Party No. 1 herein, accordingly, filed a representation, on consideration of which, the Chairman -cuw -Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order on September 21, 2004 directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to hand over complete charge and join his place of posting and communicated the said order to the Opp. Party No. 1 (Annexure -7). In spite of the above order, the Opp. Party No. 1 did not join in his duty in his new place of posting and after lapse of about one year, filed a petition before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur for computation of wages, as already stated above. The Management on receiving the notice filed a reply, inter alia, stating that the Opp. Party No. 1 has not performed any duty during the period in question and also raised the question with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 33 -C(2) of the Act.

(3.) FROM the impugned order, it appears that the Labour Court took note of the case of the workman that successor to the Opp. Party No. 1, namely, Shri Sanatan Pradhan could not take charge of the above establishment in view of the resistance put -forth by the outsiders, namely, Krushna Chandra Prusty and Others. The Opp. Party No. 1 has never handed over the charge of the establishment/unit including the stock available with him to his successor and by ignoring the fact that he has not committed any error, his salary from 2003 onwards were not paid to him. It also took note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Management that the Opp. Party No. 1 was relieved from his previous station in the forenoon of August 20, 2003 to join in his new place of posting and the said order was duly sent to him by registered post, but he refused to receive the same. He also took note of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, being W.P. (C) No. 12026/2003, and the order passed on the representation of the Opp. Party No. 1 pursuant to the said order. Taking note of the fact that the Management has not proved the endorsement of the postman showing that the Opp. Party No. 1 has refused the relieve order, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there are materials to infer that his reliever, namely, Sanatan Pradhan could not take charge of the, establishment/unit because of the resistance put forth by the persons of the locality and observed that if this aspect is taken into account, then there is every reason of the authority to treat the Opp. Party No. 1 liberally as because, his absence from the centre would have caused loss to the Management/Corporation. Taking note of the calculation sheet furnished by the Opp. Party No. 1, the Labour Court held that the Opp. Party No. 1 is entitled to get Rs. 74,444 in cash and a sum of Rs. 9468 is to be deposited in his EPF Account and directed accordingly. He also allowed a cost of Rs. 1000 in favour of the Opp. Party No. 1.