Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1966 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.4166 of 2007)
State of Orissa & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
Bilash Chandra Ojha ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the
appellants. In the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants the challenge was to
the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 71
of 1988.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The industrial dispute was initiated by the respondent workman, inter
alia, challenging the termination of his service. Conciliation having failed,
the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under
Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short the ‘Act’) referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for
adjudication. The reference read as follows:
“Whether the termination of Sri Bilash Chandra
Ojha, Compositor from service by the management of
M/s. Information and Publication Printing Press, Krushi
Sambada Sarabaraha Sanstha in November, 1981 is legal
and/or justified? If not to what relief Sri Ojha is
entitled?
The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he was
engaged as a Compositor by the Management from 14.3.1980 till
10.10.1981. He asserted that as statutory provisions of Section 25 F of the
Act having not been complied with the order of termination of his service
2
was unjust, illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full
back wages.
The management appeared before the Labour Court and filed a
written statement admitting the fact that the workman was engaged under it
but then took a stand that he had voluntarily abandoned his service and, as
such, he was not entitled to any relief. It was also pleaded that the appellant
is not an industry and, therefore, the Act had no application. It was also
pleaded that the claim of the workman of having worked for more than 240
days was without any basis. The workman had appeared at a test for
selection, but was not successful.
The labour court found that the workman worked continuously for
more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of termination of
the service. Therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 25-I of the Act
were not complied with and, therefore, the termination was unjust and
illegal. Therefore, the Labour court directed reinstatement but without back
wages. The Award was assailed by the appellants in a writ petition. The
High Court dismissed the same holding that the conclusion of the Labour
Court that the workman had worked for more than 240 days, was based on
3
available material. Additionally, the mandatory provisions of Section 25(F)
were not complied with.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that various stands taken by the appellant have not been considered. Basic
stand was taken before the Labour Court that the appellant is not an
industry. That question has not been decided. The Labour Court had
directed and held that though the respondent was engaged on casual basis,
he deserves to be regularized. Further stand of the appellants that he had
abandoned the work has not been considered also. It is pointed out that the
Conciliation Officer categorically recorded while holding that there was
failure of conciliation that a test was held in February, 1982 where the
respondent had appeared and was unsuccessful. It was also noted that the
respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year, and
he was engaged only as a casual labourer and had abandoned the job and
was not thrown out employment as claimed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
the Labour Court and the High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects
and there is no scope for any interference.
4
5. We find that neither the Labour court nor the High Court considered
the relevant aspects like whether the Agricultural Department of the
Government of Orissa is an Industry and that whether there was any scope
for being regularised when admittedly the Labour court found that the
respondent was engaged on casual basis. The other question was whether
there was any termination or whether the respondent had abandoned the
work. These factors apparently have not been considered. Further the
question whether the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year has also not been considered in the proper perspective. That
being so, the impugned order cannot be maintained and is set aside. The
matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the relevant aspects afresh.
6. The appeal is allowed.
….……......................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………….………...............J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
March 27, 2009
5