AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition by the Management-Petitioner challenges an award of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 6th March, 1998 passed in I.D.
Case No.224 of 1991 holding that the termination of the services of Opposite Party No.2-workman was illegal and directing his reinstatement with
50% back wages.
When this writ petition was first listed on 27th May, 1998 while directing notice to be issued, this Court stayed the operation of the award subject to
fulfillment of requirement of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
It appears that this direction was not complied with and on 20th April, 2004 in an application Misc. Case No.14189 of 1998, a learned Single Judge
of this Court reiterated that the Petitioner should comply with Section 17B of the ID Act, if it had not been complied with till then.
As it transpires that order was never complied with and on 18th August, 2011, the following order was passed:
“Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the order dated 27.5.1998 passed in Misc. Case No.6551 of 1998 requiring the petitioner to comply
with Section 17B of the ID Act has not yet been complied with.
On going through the order sheet, it appears that in spite of similar orders dated 9.8.1999, 20.4.2004, 21.4.2011 and on 3.5.2011 directing the petitioner to comply with
Section 17B of the ID Act, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instruction in the matter.
List this matter on 25.8.2011. It is made clear that if no adequate reply is provided by the petitioner by the next date, the interim order shall stand vacated.â€
On the following date i.e. on 25th August 2011, it was noticed that the requirement of Section 17B of the ID Act had still not been complied with.
The Court then passed the following order:
“Misc. Case No.118 of 2009
This application is filed by opposite party no.2-workman to comply with Section 17B of the ID Act pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.5.1998 passed in Misc.
Case No.6551 of 1998.
Heard Mr. S. S. Parida on behalf of Mr. B. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that he has yet to take instruction in the matter.
From the order sheet it appears that on 18.8.2011 this matter was adjourned to 25.08.2011 with the observation that if no adequate reply is provided by the petitioner
by the next date, the interim order shall stand vacated. Today no instruction is obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the interim order dated
27.5.1998 stands vacated. Opposite party no.2 is at liberty to seek execution of the award.
The Misc. Case is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.â€
The position as of today is therefore the Petitioner never complied with the conditional stay order granted by this Court on 27th May, 1998. The
very basis of entertainment of the writ petition has thus been defeated by the Petitioner by not complying with Section 17B of the ID Act.
Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award. If and when the Petitioner is able to produce the proof of having
complied with Section 17B of the ID Act, it would be open to the Petitioner to apply to the Court for revival of the petition.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
……………………………….