High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 08 OHC CK 0125

Management Of Baitarani Iron Mines Of Dr. S. Pradhan vs Government Of India And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 24 August 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · B. P. Routray, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
OJC No.2868 Of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 347 words

 1. This petition had been filed way back in 2001 assailing an Award dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela (hereafter

the Tribunal) whereby the Opposite Parties-workmen were held entitled to get an annual bonus @ 20% during the accounting year 1994-95.

2.

The principal grievance in the present petition was that the above Award was an ex parte one and further that there was an earlier settlement

pursuant to which the workmen had in fact been paid bonus as agreed to.

3.

It is seen that this was in fact the second round of litigation. In an earlier round, this Court had on 26th October, 1998 passed an order in OJC

No.13607 of 1998 by this Petitioner, challenging a reference made on 9th June, 1998 by the Government of India of the above disputes for adjudication

to the Tribunal. In that order, while not being inclined to interfere, this Court had permitted the present Petitioner to raise all the points urged in the writ

petition before the Tribunal.

4.

On 27th March, 2021 in the present petition, there was an interim order staying the impugned Award until further orders. That stay order has

continued for more than 20 years thereafter. On the previous date i.e. on 7th October, 2020 when none appeared for the Opposite Parties, fresh

notice was directed to issue to the General Secretary, North Orissa Workers’ Union. Today, none appears on their behalf.

5.

Considering the long pendency of the present petition for over two decades, and the fact that the Petitioner had already agreed to pay the workemn

annual bonus for the year 1994-95 @ 16% and production incentive @ 2% (as averred in para 4 (a) of the present petition), the amount involved in the

implementation of the impugned Award (i.e. payment of bonus at 4% more just for one year) cannot be very substantial. Consequently, the Court is

not at this stage inclined to interfere with the impugned Award.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

7.

The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

……………………………….