AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-workman. His client has raised industrial dispute on retrenchment. By order dated 5th October, 2010 schedule of the reference was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. He submits, his client has challenged award dated 22nd August, 2015, by which the reference was answered against him.
The Tribunal illegally held that his client could not establish employer-employee relationship between opposite party no.2 and himself. He hands up copy of settlement voucher dated 15th July, 2009 tendered by said opposite party as ext.C in the reference. He submits, the document is clear proof of employer-employee relationship and the Tribunal having held otherwise committed perversity.
Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits, no interference is warranted. Neither cogent nor credible evidence was produced by petitioner to establish employer-employee relationship. The Tribunal found on facts that the workman had been employed by Barclays Finance Limited. All that ext.C shows is a full and final settlement. On that basis it cannot be presumed petitioner had continuously worked under his client for 240 days, let alone establish any relationship between him and his client.
We by our order dated 17th January, 2024 had added Barclays Finance Limited at Plot no.10p & 12p, City Mart, NH-5, Baramunda Colony, Bhubaneswar as party. Petitioner had then put in requisites for service to the added party. The postal article was returned bearing endorsement, inter alia, ‘no such addressee’.
Exhibit-C being voucher dated 15th July, 2009 tendered by opposite party no.2 in the reference is documentary evidence that can be relied upon. It says it is on account of full and final settlement at ₹5532/-, paid to petitioner. Particulars of the payment are bonus ₹1671/-, salary for June, 2009 at ₹996/- and one month’s salary at ₹2685/- as compensation. It is evident that opposite party no.2 paid salary to petitioner. There is discrepancy in the amount of salary paid for June, 2009 at ₹996/- and compensatory one month salary at ₹2685/-. Be that as it may, bonus was paid at ₹1671/-. Under section 10 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 minimum rate of bonus is 8.33% of the salary or wage earned by the employee during the accounting year. It is an arithmetical proposition to conclude that bonus at ₹1671/-, if taken to be a minimum at 8.33% of ₹996/- then petitioner must have worked for at least 20 months in two accounting years. As such, it is clear that petitioner was in continuous service under opposite party no.2.
In view of aforesaid and considering petitioner’s own oral evidence adduced in the Tribunal that inter alia, he was removed by added opposite party no.3, for whom he used to work, we think fit to direct compensation be paid by opposite party no.2 to petitioner at ₹50,000/-. We direct this consolidated compensation because on query from Court Mr. Mishra submits, his client has crossed the age of superannuation. The compensation is to be paid within 4 weeks from date, failing which petitioner will be entitled to take steps for recovery.
The writ petition is disposed of.
....……………………………..