ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. Vs. ORISSA MIAING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The Orissa Mining Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) a Government of Orissa undertaking -- has asked for a writ of certiorari under Article 227 of the Constitution for qushing the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa. dated 18-6-1970 on a reference made by the State Government of Orissa under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The Opposite Party No. 2 was appointed as an assistant in the office of the Corporation on 17th of March. 1964. and was promoted as a senior Assistant with effect from 20th of November. 1965, It is alleged that on 4-4-1968. he was elected as the General Secretary of the Union (Opp. party No. 1). On 20th July, 1968. the services of opposite party No. 2 were terminated with immediate effect and in lieu of one month's notice. he was allowed to draw a month's salary. The employee and the Union branded this order of termination to be an act of victimisation and the outcome of mala fides. Conciliation having failed the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal" by the State Government for adjudication
"Whether the termination of service-of Sri D. K. Sadangi. Senior Assistant, by the Management of the Crissa Mining; Corporation Ltd.. Bhubaneswar. is legal and/or justified If not. to what relief he is entitled ."
(3.) Before the Tribunal parties filed their written statements. Opposite party No. 2 examined himself as Union's witness No. 1 and no oral evidence was led on behalf of the Management. Several documents were filed. The Tribunal came to hold:
"...So on the evidence on record. I cannot but come to a conclusion that the termination of the services of this workman is mala fide and was done in colourable exencise of the power under the terms and conditions of service. I perused the confidential papers filed by the Management with a view to find the background for the termination of the services. But I do not think that on the basis of these papers a contrary view to the one I have already taken can be arrived at......................"
On the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal further stated
"The ordinary relief is reinstatement in case the order of termination is set aside. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy's case, the learned Advocate for the Management has argued that no workman can be thrusted on an unwilling Management and that Sri Sadangi was occupying a position, of trust and confidence and. therefore he should not be reinstated. In that case.. the employee was a Fitter in the Blast Furnace which is a vital part of the Company's work where both efficiency and trust would matter. The services were terminated only because of the adverse report of the police against him but not because of victimisation or unfair labour practice. Under those circumstances, the alternative relief of compensation was awarded. In the present case Sri Sadangi occupied only a clerical post. There is ho evidence that this post is one of trust and confidence. There is no justifiable ground for granting the alternative relief of compensation."
He. therefore, found that the termination was not legal and/or justified and the employee was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages. This award of the Tribunal is impugned in the present. writ petition for certiorari.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.