JUDGMENT

By the Bench:

1. Perused the Mediation Report dated 17th September, 2025 at Flag-B. Learned Mediator submitted a failure report. Hence, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up on merit.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the award dated 30th October, 2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) in ID Case No.22 of 2017. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. WP(C) No.14178 of 2020 has been filed by the Workman- Sri Kahnu Charan Sahoo, whereas WP(C) No. 5059 of 2020 has been filed by the Management of Utkal University assailing the selfsame award. For convenience of discussion, parties are described as per their status before learned Tribunal.

3. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case is that the Workman, namely, KanhuCharanSahoo was engaged under the Management of Utkal University on daily wage basis. He was engaged on 11th March, 1987 with a direction to work at Hostel No.3 w.e.f. 5th November, 1987. It is alleged by the Management that the Workman abandoned his job w.e.f. 9th January, 1991. On the other hand, the Workman alleged that he was terminated from service w.e.f. 9th January, 1991 without complying with the mandatory provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For brevity, ‘the Act’). In the year 2017, the Workman moved the labour machinery for redressal of his grievances. A conciliation proceeding was initiated and a failure report was ultimately submitted to the appropriate Government by the Conciliation Officer. Accordingly, the industrial dispute was referred to learned Tribunal for adjudication to answer the following reference.

“Whether the action of the Management of Utkal University, At/P.O. VaniVihar, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of the workman Sri KanhuCharanSahoo by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. 09.01.1991 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

4. The Workman filed his statement of claim narrating the fact that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the Management vide order dated 11th March, 1987 with a direction to work at Hostel No. 3 w.e.f. 5th November, 1987. It was also stated therein that the Workman rendered continuous services under the Management being posted at different places as per different orders issued by the Management. His name was placed at Serial No.114 of the Gradation List of Class-IV employees, which was prepared on the basis of seniority for the purpose of regularization of employees against available vacancies as and when arose. When the Workman was so continuing, the Management without assigning any reason restrained him (the Workman) to perform his duty w.e.f. 9th January, 1991 which occasioned termination of his services. Before termination the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act was not followed. Hence, he prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

5. The Management filed its written statement stating that the claim of the Workman was not maintainable as the Management had no role to play in the matter of employment or non-employment of the Workman. The Workman was working under the control and supervision of the Security Officer, who was working under the Management on being deputed from the Government of Odisha. No office order was issued to the Workman by the Management either appointing him as a DLR or terminating his services as claimed by him. It was also specifically stated in the written statement that the Workman having left the work at his own volition on 9th January, 1991 without any intimation to the controlling officer, the question of complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Act did not arise at all. It was also stated that although the name of the Workman was at Serial No.114 of the List prepared by the Management as per seniority, but as he remained unauthorised