Back
2013 Supreme(Ori) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, J.
RAGHUNATH SATPATHY - APPELLANT
Versus
MANAGEMENT, ASKA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 13711 of 2011
Decided On : 28-06-2013
S. Mishra, S.N. Mishra, B. Dash, B.N. Mishra and D. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; Sarat Ch. Panda, M.K. Mazumdar and R. Das Nayak, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal, considering the nature of work and tenure of service.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute - Termination of Service - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33C(2), Section 12(4) - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to arrear subsistence allowance and house rent allowance, the legality of the termination of service, and the compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Key legal provisions include Section 33C(2) and Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the nature of work, tenure of service, and the settled position of law regarding reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award holding the discharge from service as legal and justified. The petitioner's service history, suspension, discharge, and subsequent legal proceedings were discussed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the termination of the petitioner's service to be illegal and unreasonable, considering the nature of work and tenure of service. The court modified the impugned award and directed the management to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the termination, entitlement to arrear subsistence allowance and house rent allowance, and the plea for reinstatement with full back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination was illegal and unreasonable, and the petitioner was entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement, considering the nature of work and tenure of service.
Final Decision: The court directed the management to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service with full back wages.
JUDGMENT :
Sanju Panda, J. - This Writ Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in Industrial Dispute Case No. 57 of 1996 holding that the punishment of discharge from service imposed on the petitioner was legal and justified. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Man Demonstrator under Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. opposite party No. 1 on 26.12.1969 and on successful completion of his probation period his services were confirmed w.e.f. 3.7.1971. Due to his sincere service and achievements in crushing of canes and enhancement of recovery, he was given promotion from time to time and lastly he was promoted on 20.2.1991 as Cane Development Assistant, which is a Clerical post It is stated that basing on some frivolous complaints of some farmers with regard to transaction of seed cane and fertilizer, the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 suspended the petitioner from service w.e.f. 10.6.1994. It is further stated that such order of suspension was passed without giving any opportunity as well as without informing the petitioner with regard to the irregularities as alleged against him. On 2.8.1994 i.e. after about two months from the date of suspension of the petitioner, opposite party No. 1 issued the following Memorandum of Charges to the petitioner:
1. The petitioner had collected Rs. 105/- instead of Rs. 27/- from new Cane Growers as Nominal Membership Fees and he had not refunded the said amount to them in spite of direction.
2. The petitioner had shown lack of supervision resulting in payment of seeds cost to non-suppliers.
3. The petitioner had misappropriated the funds of industry.
4. The petitioner had not issued Debit Memos to the Growers immediately after distribution of fertilizers.
5. The petitioner had shown carelessness in submitting the Day Book relating to supply of fertilizer.
In pursuance of the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges, the petitioner filed his explanation on 5.8.1994 denying all the charges levelled against him. As me petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, he made a representation on 20.4.1995 to opposite party No. 1 praying for release of subsistence allowance, bonus and incentive dues in order to meet the medical expenses of his ailing father or to revoke the suspension order, but the same was not considered. It is stated that due to want of proper medical care, the father of the petitioner died on 28.9.1995. While the petitioner's representation for release of his arrear dues were pending before the authorities, opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 3.4.1996 discharged the petitioner from service. After receiving the order of discharge, the petitioner came to know that such order had been passed illegally on the basis of some papers, on which the Management had forcibly obtained the signature of the petitioner though the petitioner had not understood the contents of such documents which were written in English. It is stated that though the petitioner has filed a representation before opposite party No. 1 on 7.5.1996 requesting him to supply the documents on which his signatures had been obtained by the Management, the same was not considered. Challenging the illegal order of discharging him from service, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Berhampur, which was dealt with by the Asst. Labour Officer, Aska. After issuance of a number of notices for conciliation, the Management of opposite party No. 1 did not take interest to appear before the Asst Labour Officer for conciliation. As a result of which the Asst. Labour Officer submitted a failure report on 21.8.1997 indicating about the existence of an Industrial Dispute. Thereafter the Industrial Dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput u/s 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act and it was
