Back
2007 Supreme(Ori) 687
A.K. Ganguly and I. Mohanty, JJ.
Nilachal Service Station
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court And Anr.
W.A. No. 95 of 2005
Decided on : 10-9-2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, as well as the application of the principle of res judicata in dismissing restoration petitions.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Service - Section 33C(2), Section 17, Section 17A - The court discussed the legality of termination of service under the Industrial Disputes Act and the enforceability of the award. It highlighted the provisions of Section 17 and Section 17A, emphasizing the publication and enforceability of the award. The court also applied the principle of res judicata in dismissing the restoration petition, citing previous decisions and legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a restoration application filed by the management of Nilachal Service Station, contesting the termination of a workman's service. The workman sought reinstatement with full back wages after an ex parte award by the Labour Court. The appellant also faced criminal proceedings for non-implementation of the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award was enforceable as it was published in accordance with Section 17 and Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It dismissed the restoration petition based on the principle of res judicata, citing previous decisions and legal precedents.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of termination of service, enforceability of the award, and the application of res judicata in dismissing the restoration petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 17 and Section 17A to determine the enforceability of the award. It also relied on the principle of res judicata to dismiss the restoration petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.
1. The management of Nilachal Service Station, (Indian Oil Petrol Pump),Grand Road, Puri has filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment dated June 20, 2005 passed by a learned Judge of the writ Court in O.J.C. No. 14546/2001 wherein the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by a reasoned judgment. The present appellant was the petitioner before the writ Court and the writ petition was filed challenging dismissal of a restoration application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 12/2000 by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in respect of an ex parte award passed against the petitioner.
2. The material facts are that an industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 -workman challenging the legality of his termination from service by the management of Nilachal Service Station. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said reference runs as follows:
Whether the termination of service of Bhramarbar Das by the Management of Nilachal Service Station (Indian Oil Petrol Pump), Grand Road, Puri is legal and/ or justified? If not to what relief Das is entitled?
On consideration of the material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the workman by the Management of Nilachal Service Station was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The case of the workman-respondent No. 2 is that after the award of the Labour Court was passed on August 19, 1985, he submitted the joining report which was accepted, but no wages were paid as per the award. Thereafter on October 16, 1985 the workman
submitted an application for payment of wages. Since no action was taken on his application for payment of wages he filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of his entitlements under the award. The said application was registered as Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 104/1987. Another application was also filed by the workman for computation of service which was registered as Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 179/1991, dated November 25, 1989 along with an application for condonation of delay. As both the applications for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte order dated November 25,1989 were rejected, the writ petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 2685/1991 and the said writ petition was dismissed by a Divisional Bench of this Court by order dated December 11, 1991. The said order passed by the Division Bench is to the following effect:
Though notice of admission has been issued in this case, after hearing Kar for the petitioner and Das for opposite party No. 2 and on perusal of the LCR, we do not find any justification for our interference in the impugned order dated March 16,1991. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has found that in the proceeding under Section 33C(2), the petitioner refused to receive notice and avoided to attend the Court. This statement of the Labour Court is borne out by the service returns of the postal authorities. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for interference with order dated March 16, 1991. This application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
3. At that juncture, the writ petitioner-appellant filed a misc. case before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar praying for setting aside the ex parte award which was passed in 1985. The Labour Court after looking into the records of the proceeding did not accept the plea of the writ petitioner that it did not receive the notice in that case. As such the application filed for condonation of delay was rejected as also the prayer for setting aside the ex parte award was also rejected. The Labour Court after looking into the record
