Branch Manager, United Commercial Bank vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal And Others

B. P. Routray, J

I.A. No. 16 of 2021

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. Somanath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Pujahari, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

This application has been filed by opposite party no.3 seeking to recall/modify the order dated 02.03.2021 passed in Misc. Case No. 121/2017 arising out of OJC No. 10239 of 2000 either by enhancing the compensation amount in lieu of reinstatement or granting service benefit with effect from 24.09.1999 till date.

Mr. B. Pujahari, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 vehemently contended that the bank, having lost before the tribunal, in view of the direction given for reinstatement in service with full back wages, has approached this Court by filing writ petition. But taking into consideration the year old case and other circumstances, this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2017, by observing that it would be just and adequate to meet the ends of justice, directed to reinstate the workman-opposite party no.3 in service with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of back wages. The said order was sought to be modified in Misc. Case No.121 of 2017 and vide order dated 02.03.2021 this Court modified the order dated 16.01.2017 to the extent that the management shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of the workman and rest part of the order dated 16.01.2017 shall remain unaltered. It is contended that if the opposite party no.3-workman has not been reinstated in service, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- may not be adequate taking into consideration the present situation and, as such, the same should be enhanced. Therefore, this application has been filed.

Mr. Somanath Mishra, learned counsel for the bank vehemently contended that opposite party no.3 workman was engaged as a NMR daily wager from 01.09.1983 to 12.04.1986 and was paid @Rs.8/- per day on his actual day of work and, thereafter, he did not come to work. But after nine years, opposite party no.3 raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred and registered as I.D. Case No.110/97 (C) before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. After due adjudication, the tribunal vide award dated 24. 09.1999 directed for reinstatement of the workman-opposite party no.3 with full back wages, which was challenged by the bank in OJC No. 10239 of 2000. After hearing the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2017, upheld the direction of reinstatement, but modified the award of back wages to compensation of Rs.25,000/- considering the daily wages of opposite party no.3-workman. It is contended that in compliance of the order dated 02.03.2021, the bank has paid the entire amount, i.e., Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party no.3-workman on 26.03.2021. As such, opposite party no.3 has already crossed the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022 as per records and, therefore, question of reinstatement in service does not arise. It is further contended that as per the direction of this Court since the bank has already paid the amount to the workman, no further amount is admissible to the opposite party no.3. Consequentially, dismissal of the interlocutory application is sought for.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that undisputedly the petitioner was rendering service as a NMR daily wager from 01.09.1983 to 12. 04.1986 and was paid @ Rs.8/- per day on his actual day of work and, thereafter, he did not come to work. Consequentially, he raised an industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred and registered as I.D. Case No.110/97 (C) before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. After due adjudication, the tribunal vide award dated 24.09.1999 directed for reinstatement of the workman-opposite party no.3 with full back wages, which was challenged by the bank in OJC No. 10239 of 2000. After hearing the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16. 01.2017, upheld the direction of reinstatement, but modified the award of back wages to compensation of Rs.25,000/- considering the daily wages of opposite party no.3-workman. Thereafter, I.A. No. 121 of 2017 has been filed by the management for modification of the order dated 16.01.2017 and this Court, vide order dated 2. 03.2021, has passed the following order:-

“This application has been filed by the management for modification of the order dated 16.01.2017 passed in OJC No. 10239 of 2000.

Heard.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and the averments made in the petition, we modify the order dated 16.01.2017 to the extent that the management shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) in lieu of reinstatement of the workman. The rest part of the order dated 16.01.2017 shall remain unaltered.

Accordingly, the misc. case is disposed of.”

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the bank has paid the entire amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the workman-opposite party no.3. But, so far as reinstatement is concerned, since opposite party no.3 has already crossed the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022 as per records, question of reinstatement does not arise. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the opposite party no.3 for enhancement of compensation amount, as he has not been reinstated in service by the bank. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 02.03.2021 for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of the workman be enhanced to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- so that it can meet the ends of justice. Since the bank has already paid Rs.50,000/- to the workman-opposite party no.3, balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) shall be paid to the opposite party no.3-workman within a period four weeks hence. The rest part of the order dated 16.01.2017 shall remain unaltered. It is made clear that this modification application has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, it is directed that on payment of differential amount to the workman-opposite party no.3, this matter shall stand closed for all time to come.

With the above direction, the I.A. stands disposed of.

………………………………