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. 9181 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

******

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

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur, AT /PO /PS/Town/Dist- Sambalpur, Pin-768212

2. Shri Gyana Ranjan Jena, S/o- Braja Kishore Jena, AT: Jagarnath Palli, near Shiv Mandir, near E Block, Sector-16, PO: Sector 16, Rourkela, Dist:

…. Opp. Parties Sundergarh PIN-769003, 3. M/s Hindalco Industrial Limited, represented through its Managing Director, AT Ahura Centre, 1^st Floor, B- wind, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri …. Proforma (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, PIN-

Opp. Party

400093 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

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:14:09 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 20^th March, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur (for brevity ‘Labour Court’) in ID Case No.3 of 2023 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 (for brevity ‘the ID Act’) 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 submitted that the Workman, while working as Junior Operator, was terminated from service on 16^th November, 2022, 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 before the Industrial Adjudicator under Section 2-A (2) of the ID Act. On being noticed, the Management appeared before the learned Labour Court and raised objection with regard to maintainability of the application under Section 2-A (2) of the ID Act. In the said application, the First Party Management contended that since the Second Party Workman, without exhausting the Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:14:09 remedy under Clause-26 of the Standing Orders, has filed application under Section 2-A (2) of the ID Act, the same is not maintainable. It was also contended that the application under Section 2-A (2) of the ID Act also suffered from non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Objection to the application regarding maintainability of the proceeding was filed by the Second Party Workman. The said application was rejected vide order dated 20^th March, 2024 by the learned Labour Court holding that the First Party Management had not filed the written statement by the time when the petition on the maintainability of the proceeding came up for consideration. Thus, it was held that the First Party Management had no locus standi to file petition challenging maintainability of the proceeding without filing written statement. Further, the objection of the First Party Management that the Second Party Workman had not exhausted the remedy under Clause-26 of the Standing Orders was overruled on the ground that the same can be c