CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 02 OHC CK 0118

Member Secretary, Cadre Committee, The Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Kartik Chandra Bhakta (Since Dead) Represented By His Lrs

Orissa High Court · Decided on 16 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · M.S.Raman, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10532 Of 2010

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

7 paragraphs · 378 words
1.

The challenge in the present writ petition by the Petitioner-Management is to an award dated 4th February, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.139 of 2008 holding that the dismissal of the Opposite Party-Workman from service with effect from 24th August, 1995 was illegal and directing his reinstatement without any back wages but directing payment of subsistent allowance for the period of suspension while giving liberty to the Management to hold a fresh enquiry.

2.

Even before the reference could be taken up on 1st August, 2006 the Opposite Party superannuated and, therefore, by the time the award was passed, the question of reinstatement did not arise.

3.

During the pendency of the present petition, an unconditional stay was granted of the impugned award by this Court on 14th July, 2010 itself. The Opposite Party expired and by order dated 3rd April, 2013 his Legal Representatives (LRs) were brought on record. Thereafter, the petition has been pending. In the meanwhile on 28th June, 2010 Misc. Case No.42 of 2010 had been filed before the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for realization of the amount due under the award.

4.

Having heard Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Management and Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Workman and having perused the impugned award, the Court is of the view that with the extremely limited relief granted to the Workman and with there being no possibility of any reinstatement or even a fresh enquiry, the award does not call for any interference at this stage. When asked what the amount is due to the Workman would be, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel offers that it works out to Rs.1.5 Lakhs as of today.

5.

With the dispute having been pending for over 28 years, it does appear to this Court that the sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs is indeed grossly inadequate. Nevertheless, with the Workman not having asked for any further sum, it is not possible for this Court to grant any enhanced amount. In these circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioner-Management will deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs before the next date with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

6.

List in the Supplementary List on 3rd April, 2023.

……………………………..