Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:14:09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 38413 OF 2023 (An Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

******

M/s. Aditya Aluminium, Lapanga, …. Petitioner represented through its Chief Executive, AT/PO -Lapanga-768212, Dist.: Sambalpur -versus-

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour …. Opp. Parties Court, Sambalpur, AT /PO /PS/Town/Dist- Sambalpur, Pin-768212 2. Shri Goutam Das, S/o-Ananta Kumar Das, AT/PO: Chanda Kusumi, PS: Kamarda, Dist: Balasore, PIN-756035 Advocates for the Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Somanath Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel (for Opposite Party No.1)

Mr.Rabindra Nath Debata, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.2)

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heard and Disposed of on : 11.03.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

By the Bench :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Consent Memo filed by Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner is taken on record.

3. Order dated 19^th October, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur (for Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:14:09 brevity ‘Labour Court’) in ID Case No.4 of 2022 is under challenge in this Writ Petition, whereby an application filed by the Management-Petitioner challenging maintainability of the proceeding under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the Workman-Opposite Party No.2, has been rejected.

3.1. For the sake of convenience in discussion, the parties are described as per their status before the Labour Court, Sambalpur.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Management submits that the Workman was terminated from service on 19^th November, 2019, on being found guilty in a domestic enquiry. The Workman without exhausting the remedy under Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium (for brevity ‘the Standing Orders’) moved to the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). On being noticed, the Management appeared before learned Labour Court and raised objection with regard to maintainability of the application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act. The said application was rejected vide order dated 18^th March, 2023 by learned Labour Court holding that maintainability of the application is a mixed question of fact and law and the Management having not filed the written statement by then, the question of maintainability of the application could be adjudicated along with other issues. The Management, being not satisfied, filed an application to recall/modify the said order dated 18^th March, 2023, which was also dismissed. The Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:14:09 Management, being aggrieved, assailed both the orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9425 of 2023. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court, vide judgment dated 10^th August, 2023 (Annexure-5), disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following observation and directions:-

“5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Parties and the objection taken herein and in course of hearing, this Court has gone through the provision at Order 26 of the Certified Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium further also reading together with the provision at Order 25 therein. On perusal of both the orders, this Court finds, the Management may be justified in bringing such a serious question of law. For a justified decision required to be taken by the Labour Court, this Court is not delving into answering on such issue at this stage and leaving it open for a justified decision by Labour Court itself but after entering into further argumen