The central legal point established is that termination of services must comply with Section 25-F of the ID Act, and reinstatement may not automatically follow a finding of illegality.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Management of the Ramadevi Chhatrinivas in Utkal University, Bhubaneswar has challenged an Award dated 20th July 2011 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Disputes (ID) Case No. 35 of 2004 whereby the action of the Management in terminating the services of the Opposite Party-Workman, who was working as a Watchman with them, with effect from 30th September 2000 was held to be illegal and he was directed to be reinstated with a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-.

2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 3rd April 2012, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned Award subject to the Management complying with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

3. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Management and Mr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Workman.

4. At the outset, it must be pointed out that although it was argued before the Labour Court that the Petitioner-Hostel was not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of the ID Act, Mr. Mishra in the course of his argument submitted that the Petitioner would not be pressing that point. The only question therefore is whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the termination of the services of the Opposite Party-Workman to be illegal and in directing his reinstatement with compensation of Rs. 40,000/-?

5. The facts relevant to the above issue are that the Opposite Party was appointed as a Watchman in the said hostel by an order dated 31st January 1998 on a temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 900/- per month with effect from 1st February, 1998. Subsequently, his pay was enhanced to Rs. 1250/- per month.

6. The case of the Workman was that on 30th September 2000, he was refused employment verbally without notice or assigning any reason. He met the Superintendent of the hostel on 1st October 2000, and requested that he should be allowed to join duty, but this was refused. The Workman claims that later on he was directed to work in the residence of the Superintendent, but he was not paid for that work. Claiming that the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act were not followed, and the principles of natural justice have been violated while terminating his services, an industrial dispute was raised by the Opposite Party Workman.

7. In his statement of claim, apart from averring the above contentions, the Workman pointed out that similarly situated employees who were junior to him were still continuing in employment.

8. The Petitioner Management filed a written statement in the Labour Court contending that the reference itself was barred by limitation. It was denied that the Workman had ever been asked to perform duties in the residence of the Superintendent. It was denied that the Workman had been refused employment. Therefore, the question of compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act did not arise. His employment had been changed from that of a Watchman to a Gardener by an order dated 8th September, 2000. It was stated that on 18th October 2000 at around 9.30 a.m. the Workman abused the Superintendent and Warden of the Hostel and threatened their lives as a result of which the matter was referred to the Sahidnagar Police Station (PS) on 23rd October, 2000. It was stated that the Workman refused to do the work of Gardener and thereafter he never reported for duty. It was a case of abandonment of service by the Workman. It was submitted that the Management had lost confidence in the Workman and had concerns about the reputation of the Hostel if he were to be reinstated.

9. Before the Labour Court, the Workman examined himself as WW-1 and proved Exts.1 to 7. The Management examined a Reader in Zoology as MW-1 and proved the documents as Exts. A to C. As regards the contention of the Workman that he had completed 240 days of service in the twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination, the Labour Court too