The termination of an employee without due process is illegal, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to substantiate claims of non-employment.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Management of Orient Paper Mills, Bhubaneswar, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 31.03.2018, passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000.

2. Vide the said award, learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, answered issue no.1 regarding termination of service of the Opposite Party-Workman by way of refusal of employment w.e.f 14.02.1999 to be illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, so far as issue No.2 regarding relief, it granted the relief of a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), to be paid to the Opposite Party-Workman within a period of three months from the date of publication of the said award, with an observation that if the Management fails to pay such compensation awarded in favour of the Opposite Party-Workman, the same shall carry a simple interest of 6% per annum till it is paid to the Opposite Party-Workman.

3. As is revealed from the record so also impugned award, passed in I.D. Case No.104 of 2000, the case of the Opposite Party-Workman (Second Party-Workman before the Court below) is that he was initially engaged under the Resident Officer of the Management at Bhubaneswar since 1984 on a daily wage of Rs.25/-. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Watchman vide office order dated 02.09.1993 on a consolidated salary of Rs.885/- per month w.e.f 01.08.1993. Thereafter, the workman approached the District Labour Officer (DLO), Khordha vide his petition dated 23.02.1999 alleging non-payment of arrear wages, statutory bonus and minimum wages etc. During joint enquiry, the Management contended that his service has already been terminated. It was the case of the Opposite Party-Workman that the Management abruptly terminated his service without observing any formalities and without affording any opportunity of hearing and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

4. It was further case of the Opposite Party-Workman before the Labour Court that neither he had been served with any notice nor paid with notice pay and compensation before termination of his service by way of refusal of employment. Hence, being aggrieved, he approached the Labour Authority, who started a conciliation proceeding, which failed.

5. Consequently, the reference was made to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication of the dispute regarding termination of service of the Opposite Party-Workman as Watchman w.e.f. 14.02.1999 by way of refusal of employment.

6. Being noticed, the Petitioner-Management (the First Party-Management before the Court below) appeared and filed its written statement, questioning the maintainability of reference on the ground that the Opposite Party-Workman is not coming under the definition of “Workman”, as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shortly, the I.D. Act.

7. A further stand was taken before the Court below that all the documents relied upon by the Opposite Party- Workman are forged and created for the purpose of the said case. It was further contended that at no point of time, there was any relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the Opposite Party-Workman. Hence, the question of reinstatement, payment of back wages and other service benefits does not arise. Accordingly, a prayer was made to reject the prayer of the Workman with costs.

8. As is further revealed from the record, the Opposite Party-Workman filed a Rejoinder in response to the said written statement filed by the Management, reiterating his plea already taken in th