STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. versus BILASH CHANDRA OJHA

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1219 · Decided: 27-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1219 
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. 
v. 
BILASH CHANDRA OJHA 
Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2009 
MARCH 27, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.) 
A 
B 
Labour Law - Termination - Of casual worker - Labour 
Court directed re-instatement - Order upheld by High Court -
C 
On appeal, held: Both Labour Court and High Court failed to 
consider relevant aspects - Matter remitted to High Court for 
decision afresh - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- ss. 25F and 251. 
Respondent-workman, engaged on casual basis, 
was terminated from service. The Labour Court directed o 
his re-instatement. The order was upheld by the High 
Court. Hence the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Neither the Labour Court nor the High Court E 
considered the relevant aspects like whether the 
concerned Department was an Industry and that whether 
there was any scope for regularization Y{hen admittedly 
the Labour Court found that the respondent was engaged 
on casual basis. The other question was whether there F 
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 of the G 
High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The 
matter is· remitted to the High Court to consider the 
relevant aspects afresh. (Para - 5) [1222-C-E] 
1219 
H 
1220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1966 
of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 22.06.2005 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 13108 of 
B 1997. 
c 
Shibashish Mishra, for the Appellants. 
C.K. Sucharita, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
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 
D 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 l.D. Case No. 71 of 1988. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
E 
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 
F the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The 
G 
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 
H 14.3.1980 till 10.10.1981. He asserted that as statutory 
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. V. BILASH 
1221 
CHANDRA OJHA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act having not been complied A 
with the order of termination of his service was unjust, illegal 
and he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back 
wages. 
The management appeared before the Labour Court and B 
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 c 
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 D 
preceding the date of termination of the service. Therefore, the 
mandatory provisions of Section 25-1 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 E 
in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the same holdi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.