Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.339 OF 2009 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

*****

Dharanidhar Khuntia …… Petitioner -Versus-

1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

2. Managing Director, M/s. Utkal Refinery Limited, Jagatpur, Cuttack .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared:

For Petitioner : Mr. Bamadev Baral, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dah, Additional Government Advocate CORAM :

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

Heard and disposed of on 20.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the part of the Award dated 14^th February, 2007 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.26 of 1999, refusing the back wages in favour of the Petitioner while directing his reinstatement.

Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17

3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner- Workman was serving as a driver under the Management-Opposite Party No.2. He rendered unblemished service to the Management from 1995 till 3^rd August, 1997, when he was denied entry into the premises of the Opposite Party No.2-Management without assigning any reason. When the request of the Petitioner to allow him to discharge his duty did not render any result, the Petitioner raised the industrial dispute. On failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Tribunal’) for adjudication of the following reference:

“Whether the termination of service of Sri Dharanidhar Khuntia, Driver by the Managing Director M/ s. Utkal Refinery Ltd,| Jagatpur w.e.f. 04.08.97 is legal and/justified ?

If not, what relief Sri Khuntia is entitled ?"

4. On receipt of notice, the Workman-Petitioner so also First Party-Management (Opposite Party No.2) filed their respective statement of claims and written statement. The Petitioner, who is the second party-Workman, in his statement of claim stated that he joined as a driver under the Management on 20^th March, 1995. He discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his Authority till the year 1997. It was his stand that on 4^th August, 1997, when he went to join his duty as usual, he was not allowed entry into the factory premises of the Management by the security personnel. On query, he came to know that the Managing Director of the Company instructed not to allow entry of the Petitioner to the factory premises. It was also stated that finding no way out, the Petitioner-Workman raised an industrial dispute before the District Labour Officer, Cuttack alleging termination of his service w.e.f.

Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jan-2026 12:40:17

4^th August, 1997. Accordingly, conciliation was taken up. Before the Conciliation Officer, Cuttack, the Management took a stand of unauthorized absence of the Petitioner from duty w.e.f. 4^th August, 1997. Subsequently, a charge sheet was communicated to the Petitioner vide Letter dated 20^th September, 1997, followed by a domestic enquiry. While admitting to have participated in the enquiry, the Petitioner-Workman stated that the enquiry so conducted against him without following the principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to defend him in the enquiry. The domestic enquiry was concluded without his knowledge. Thus, the enquiry so conducted was unfair and perfunctory. It was further contended in the statement of claim that the action of the Management amounted to termination of his service w.e.f., 4^th August, 1997, which was illegal and unjustified. As the conciliation was not successful