COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt.22.03.2022 These two writ appeals would arise out of the common order dated

28.12.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in two separate writ petitions, one being W.P.No.2955 of 2021 preferred by the appellant (management) and the other – W.P.No.5271 of 2009 preferred by the 1st respondent- workman. While the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed, that preferred by the workman has been allowed by the learned single Judge. W.P.No.2955 of 2001 was preferred challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam on 23.10.2000 in I.D.No.219 of 1998, whereas W.P.No.5271 of 2009 was preferred challenging the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.P.No.43 of 2005.

2. Both the writ appeals were heard analogously on the issue of maintainability. However, to understand and appreciate the nature of proceedings before the Labour Court, it is deemed expedient to state the factual matrix, though succinctly.

3. The workman preferred an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “the 1947 Act”) before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam for reinstatement with back-wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. Based on the claim and the defence put forth by the parties, the Labour Court, by its award dated 23.10.2000, held that the petitioner (before the Labour Court) has been doing manual work of tracking samples and testing them, weighment, accounting of the articles and boxing the material and noting the size of the material, therefore, he is a workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the 1947 Act. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it was also found that dismissal of an employee for disobedience of a transfer order on health grounds was shockingly disproportionate, therefore, under the circumstances, dismissal of the workman is liable to be set aside. Allowing the application, the Labour Court modified the order of dismissal to one of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. However, if he fails to report at his new station at Jharsuguda within one month, he will not be entitled to back-

wages or continuity of service.

4. The management challenged the order of reinstatement and modification of punishment/reduction of punishment. On the other hand, the workman allegedly joined duty on 09.02.2001 at Jharsuguda, but he was not allowed to join. Therefore, he preferred a petition before the Labour Court seeking execution of the award. However, when the same was returned, he preferred M.P.No.43 of 2005 under Section 33(c)(2) of the 1947 Act for recovery of wages from 01.01.1998 to 30.04.2005. Upon dismissal of the petition by the Labour Court, he preferred W.P.No.5271 of 2009. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the management while allowing the writ petition preferred by the workman.

5. In the course of hearing, the issue that had fallen for consideration was about the maintainability of the writ appeals. Referring to various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and different High Courts in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.1, Management of Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Aita Ram2, Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer3, Gurushanth Pattedar v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and another 4, Caparo Engineering India Ltd. v. Ummed Singh Lodhi and another (Civil Appeal Nos.5829-5830 of 2021), Vishnu Ganapathi Naik v. The Management of NWKRTC5 and Ghanshyam Sharma v. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation6, Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the workman, argued that the award passed by the Labour Court being essentially an adjudication of a civil dispute by a judicial forum, the learned single Judge could have exercised power only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that being so, writ appeals are not maintainable against an order passed in exercise of