2023 LLR 254
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
Hon'ble Mr. M.S. Raman, J.
W.P. (C) No. 9615/2014, Dt/– 12-1-2023

Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
vs.
Mahendera Kumar Choudhury & Anr.

DISMISSAL – When not justified – Workman was discharged on the ground of unauthorised absence – Workman raised industrial dispute – Tribunal directed management to lead evidence to prove charges – Management failed to do so – Management did not appear despite notice by Tribunal – Workman filed his affidavit of evidence, copy of which was also sent to the Management – None appeared on behalf of the Management to cross-examine the workman – Evidence of workman was closed – Tribunal held the domestic enquiry was not proper, awarding reinstatement with all consequential benefits and compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakh since workman had attained age of superannuation – Held, since workman has attained age above superannuation, question of his reinstatement does not arise – Management never defended itself on merits – Interfere with impugned award is not proper – Writ petition is dismissed. Paras 3 to 5

For Petitioner: M/s. M. Ku. Mishra, Advocate and Associates.

IMPORTANT POINTS

• Discharge of workman from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism without proper enquiry is not sustainable.
• If the management does not prove the charges against the workman by leading proper evidence before the Industrial Adjudicator, awarding reinstatement with consequential benefits with back wages or reasonable compensation to the workman is justified.
• If the Management does not appear despite notice by Tribunal and conduct cross-examine the workman, challenging the award in writ petition is not sustainable.
• If domestic enquiry is held not proper, the management have right to prove the charges before the Industrial Adjudicator by leading additional evidence.
• After attainment of age above superannuation, question of reinstatement of workman does not arise.
• Awarding reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement is proper.

ORDER

M.S. Raman, J.–1. The challenge by the Management in the present petition is to Award dated 3rd December, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (‘Tribunal'), Bhubaneswar in Tr. I.D. Case No. 80 of 2001.

2. The reference to the Tribunal reads as under:

“Whether the action of the Management of Sargipali Mine Project of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in discharging Sh. Mehendra Kumar Choudhary w.e.f 31st October, 1994 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

3. The background facts are that the Opposite Party No. 1-workman joined the Management on 7th August, 1983 in Category-II, as Miner-B till the date of his discharge, i.e., 31st October, 1994 on the ground of unauthorised absence. On merits, the Tribunal noted that as far as first issue regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Management was directed to lead evidence by an order dated 11th April, 2003. However, it failed to do so. After the stay order in a writ petition filed by the Management was vacated by this Court on 3rd March, 2012, notice was again issued to the party for appearance. Despite notice, the Management did not appear. The workman however filed his affidavit of evidence which was also sent to the Management. None appeared on behalf of the Management to cross-examine the workman and therefore, the evidence was closed. Issue No. 1 therefore came to be decided in favour of the workman by the Tribunal by holding that the domestic enquiry was not proper. Two reliefs were granted to the workman. One was reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. While not awarding back wages, compensation to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs was awarded.

4. Admittedly today, the workman is aged about 67 years. The question of his reinstatement does not arise. It must be noted here that while issuing notice in the present petition on 15th May, 1994, the impugned Award was stayed. As a result, the workman had not even got the compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs although he was expected to get wages under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. Considering the number of years of service put in by the workman and the fact that the Management never defended itself on merits before the Tribunal, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court.

6. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order is vacated. No order as to costs.

Move to Top