Orissa High Court Awards ₹2 Lakh Compensation to University Workman Illegally Terminated in 1991

CUTTACK: In a significant ruling on a decades-old labour dispute, the Orissa High Court has modified an Industrial Tribunal's award, enhancing the compensation for a workman illegally terminated by Utkal University in 1991. A Division Bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho directed the university to pay ₹2 lakh to Kanhu Charan Sahoo, holding that while the 26-year delay in raising the dispute did not extinguish his right to relief, compensation was a more appropriate remedy than reinstatement, especially since the workman had already passed the age of superannuation.

Background of the Dispute: A 26-Year Wait for Justice

The case originates from the claim of Kanhu Charan Sahoo, who was engaged as a daily wage worker by Utkal University in 1987. His services were abruptly ended on January 9, 1991. While the University management contended that Sahoo had abandoned his job, the workman argued that he was illegally terminated without adherence to the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , which requires notice and compensation for retrenchment.

After a staggering delay of 26 years, the workman approached the labour machinery in 2017. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, which concluded that the workman's service termination was an illegal retrenchment. However, instead of ordering reinstatement and back wages, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of only ₹50,000. Dissatisfied with this amount, the workman filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking enhanced relief, while the University filed a separate petition challenging the Tribunal's entire award.

Arguments Before the High Court

For the Workman: Senior Advocate Mr. Das, representing Kanhu Charan Sahoo, argued that since the termination was found to be illegal, the workman was entitled to substantial back wages. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in * Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited *, he contended that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, and relief cannot be denied merely on grounds of delay. As the workman had already superannuated, he prayed for full back wages until the date of his retirement.

For the Management (Utkal University): Mr. Mohanty, counsel for Utkal University, vehemently argued that the claim was "hopelessly barred by limitation" due to the 26-year delay in approaching the conciliation officer. He asserted that the workman had voluntarily abandoned his job and the Tribunal had erred in entertaining such a stale claim. The management also initially denied that Sahoo was their employee, claiming he worked under a deputed Security Officer, a contention the Tribunal had rejected based on evidence, including a seniority list prepared by the University itself.

High Court's Rationale and Decision

The High Court bench first addressed the University's challenge to the Tribunal's factual findings. Upholding the Tribunal's conclusion, the Court reiterated the settled legal principle that it cannot act as an appellate court in writ proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution to re-appreciate evidence.

> In its judgment, the Court observed, "A finding of fact based on assessment of evidence cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution... Since on an assessment of evidence on record learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that dispensing with services of the Workman comes under the provision under Section 2 (oo) of the Act... this Court is not competent to record a finding by reappreciation of evidence on record."

Having affirmed that the termination was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court then turned to the question of relief. While acknowledging that illegal termination would ordinarily warrant reinstatement with full back wages, the bench decided that a lump sum compensation would be more appropriate given the extraordinary circumstances.

> "Ordinarily the Workman would have been entitled to reinstatement with full back wages... but in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of ₹50,000/- only," the bench noted.

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the Tribunal's compensation was inadequate, the High Court modified the award to better serve the interests of justice.

> "Taking into consideration the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Odisha at the relevant time and the period of service the Workman rendered to the Management, this Court feels that a total sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) towards a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages will serve the interest of justice."

The Court directed Utkal University to pay the amount within eight weeks, failing which it would attract an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the judgment. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural lapses in retrenchment render termination illegal, and while significant delay may influence the nature of the relief, it does not completely bar a workman's claim under industrial law.