Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, S. K. Mishra, JJ.
Managing Director/directors M/s. Kalinga Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Bhubaneswar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Mousumi Mohanty – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 19583 of 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2-A(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which deals with the maintainability of a case when no application is made to the Conciliation Officer. The court also referred to Section 2(s) of the Act, which defines 'workman', and Section 25-F, which outlines the conditions for retrenchment. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The opposite party, engaged as 'Anchor Head' on a contractual basis, raised an industrial dispute seeking to declare her termination as illegal and unjustified. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the case, the workman's status, and the legality of her termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the workman was illegal and unjustified, as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also held that the workman was entitled to lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the case, the workman's status, the legality of the termination, and the power of the Labour Court to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Sections 2-A(2), 2(s), and 25-F. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the provisions related to retrenchment and the entitlement of the workman to compensation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the impugned award in I.D. Case No.59 of 2018, finding no perversity or infirmity in the award.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mishra, J. - Being aggrieved by award dated 28.12.2021 passed in I.D. Case No.59 of 2018 by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, the petitioners have preferred the writ petition basically on the following grounds.
(i) The findings of the Labour Court are perverse, illegal, arbitrary and whimsical.
(ii) The petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity at the time of hearing by the Labour Court to produce evidence and to have their say in the matter as per law and the impugned award is violative of principles of natural justice.
(iii) The District Labour Officer being the Conciliation Officer, no application being made to the Conciliation Officer, such proceeding is not maintainable as per the mandate of law as laid down under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(iv) While deciding Issue No. IV, the Labour Court has miserably failed to take into consideration the factums pertaining to the post of opposite party, she having been appointed as 'Anchor Head' and drawing salary of Rs.48,700/-, cannot be regarded as workman as per Section 2 (s) of the Act from its proper perspective.
(v) The Labour Court, while adjudicating Issue No. V as well as while passing the impugned award, has not assigned any valid, cogent and specific reason for granting compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-(rupees four lakhs fifty thousand) and as such, relief granted being without any basis and without any materials, the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical and liable to be quashed.
(vi) Engagement of the opposite party being on contractual basis w.e.f. 20.05.2015 for a period of two years only, her service automatically expired on 19.05.2017 and thereafter, she was continuing purely on oral contract basis and her services were terminated with one month salary after meeting the official formalities and clearance from the H.R. cell. The Labour Court, while passing the impugned award, has miserably failed to take into consideration the said factums, from its proper prospective, and thereby has committed gross miscarriage of justice.
2. As it seems from pleadings made in the writ petition, most of the facts pleaded, are beyond pleadings made by the management before the Labour Court and hence, are not germane for adjudication of the present lis. However, it has been pleaded for the first time before this Court that opposite party was engaged as 'Anchor Head' on contractual basis for a period of two years under the petitioner No.1-company vide Order dated 20.05.2015. While working as such, on 01.08.2018 the Chief Editor of the petitioner No.1-Company by his e-mail dated 01.08.2018, asked the opposite party to have her reply on the issue of 'arrogance' as shown in the parking place, to which the opposite party by her e-mail dated 02.08.2018 replied that she has every right to react over the situation and her reaction was not harsh. However, on receiving many complaints pertaining to disobedience and not taking responsibility of work assigned to the opposite party, management, having sustained heavy pecuniary loss, was constrained to terminate the service of opposite party by Order dated 18.08.2018. Pursuant to the same, the opposite party raised an industrial dispute before the District Labour Officer, Khurda, by Registered Post on 13.09.2018. As the said dispute could not be resolved amicably during the stipulated period of 45 days, the opposite party preferred I.D. Case No.59 of 2018 before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, resorting to provision enshrined under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') seeking, inter alia, for declaring her termination Order dated 18.08.2018 to be illegal and unjustified and with a prayer to reinstate her with full back wages, so also to compensate her for such illegal action taken by the management.
3. Being noticed by the Labour Court, the petitioners-management appeared and filed its written statement challenging the maintainability of the said case on various grou
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
The court reaffirmed that an employer must provide procedural documentation to validate termination; absence of such leads to findings of illegal termination under the Act.
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
there is a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and as there is a delay of 11 years in preferring the reference, instead of granting reinstatement a lump sum amount as full and final settlement wil....
Termination without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act; recognition of continuous service applies despite temporary engagement gaps.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
