Jyotirmoy Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J.

Mrs. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client is a workman. He made application under section 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By order dated 10th August, 2023 the labour Court did not compute the salary payable to her client but dismissed the application. She seeks interference. On query from Court she submits, opposite party no.6 is the employer.

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

Mr. Pani, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.6 (management). He submits, there should be no interference with impugned order as petitioner miserably failed to prove his case on facts. He did not work in the months of December, 2021, January and February, 2022. No salaries were payable to him and question of computation of any amount did not arise. There has been no determination on the claim of petitioner having worked for three months. He reiterates, the labour Court did not find satisfaction on proof of the claim of petitioner. In fact the labour Court said that petitioner had admitted his failure to prove.

Mrs. Panda in reply draws attention to internal page 7 in certified copy of impugned judgment to submit, the document being legal notice dated 8th July, 2022 given by her client through advocate, was marked exhibit-2 in the proceeding. The labour Court acted with illegality in not relying upon the document, original of which the management received. She wants to rely on further documents to show her client reported on his work online. On query from Court she submits, those documents were not tendered as exhibits in the labour Court.

There were two documents tendered in the labour Court. First was copy of appointment letter dated 15th April, 2021 marked as ext.1, without objection. Second was copy of said legal notice marked ext.2, with objection. No other document was tendered by either party. By impugned order, it appears, the labour Court dealt with petitioner’s contention on ext.2, erroneously reflected as ext.B therein.

Nothing turns on erroneous description of ext.2 as ext.B in impugned order. However, we have before us petitioner, who had made a claim by advocate’s letter dated 8th July, 2022, tendered and marked ext.2. On further scrutiny we find, the objection did not relate to genuineness of the document but only to its contents. Hence, the legal notice was received by the management, who denied its contents. There is nothing tendered by the management to substantiate its dispute on the contents of the notice. This read with statement made by opposite party no.1 during cross-examination that petitioner worked till December, 2022 and thereupon to immediately say, he does not remember exact date, month, year of his last work under the management can, in the facts and circumstances, reasonably be presumed to be December, 2021. It is one of the three months, for which petitioner says he was not paid his salary.

The oral and documentary evidence before the labour Court was in respect of a claim asserted by petitioner, not demonstrated to be without basis. Making objection as to contents of the claim letter does not render the claim bad. Least the management could have done was to reply to the notice, disputing the claim. That it did not do. No document of reply denying the claim was tendered in evidence.

So far as contention of the management regarding determination is concerned, same did not find favour with the labour Court. Petitioner (workman) has challenged impugned order contending perversity on finding of facts. We have adjudicated the challenge as aforesaid and are not required to deal with the management’s contention of no determination, on its allegation that petitioner abandoned work in December, 2021. Where the claim for salary of the three months was made but not disputed and the workman had applied for execution under section 33-C(2), the question raised of determination was misconceived.

Impugned order is set aside and quashed as not based on the evidence. The labour Court is directed to proceed with computing the benefit claimed and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is disposed of.

.………………………….