The Odisha

G a z e t t e

EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 2518 CUTTACK, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2024/PAUSA 3, 1946

LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

The 18th December 2024

S.R.O. No. 729/2024—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) the Award, dated the 8th November 2024 passed in the ID Case No. 06 of 2021 by the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur to whom the industrial dispute between the

Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Ltd., C/o. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., Near D.A.V. School,

Narayani Building, Sunarimunda Road, Dist. Jharsuguda, 2. Vedanta Alumina Pvt.

Ltd., At Bhurkamunda, Dist. Jharsuguda and Pappu Prasad Sharma, S/o. Late Suchan Prasad

Sharma, At Beherapat, P.O. Ekatali, Dist. Jharsuguda-768202 was referred to for adjudication is

hereby published as in the schedule below.

SCHEDULE

IN THE LABOUR COURT SAMBALPUR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 06 of 2021

Dated the 8th November 2024

Present :

Shri Raghu Nandan Das, LL.B.,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Sambalpur.

Between :

1. Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Ltd

.. First Party—Managements

C/o Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.,

Near D.A.V. School, Narayani Building,

Sunarimunda Road, Dist. Jharsuguda.

2.Vedanta Alumina Pvt. Ltd.,

At.Bhurkamunda

Dist. Jharsuguda.

Vrs.

Pappu Prasad Sharma,

.. Second Party—Workman

S/o Late Suchan Prasad Sharma,

At.Beherapat, P.O. Ekatali,

Dist. Jharsuguda-768202

Appearances :

Shri Deepak Patel and Associates,

. .

For the Workman

Advocates.

Shri Sandeep Awasthy and Associates,

. .

For the Management No. 1 and 2

Advocates.

Date of conclusion of argument

. .

30th October 2024

Date of Award

. .

8th November 2024

AWARD

This reference has been made by the Government in Labour & E.S.I Department to this

Court vide order, dated the 7th September 2021 Undre Section.12 (5) read with Section 10 (1) (d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following Industrial Dispute:

“Whether the termination of service of Shri Pappu Prasad Shrama, Driver (HMV) w.e.f. the

27th April 2018 by M/s Chennai Radha Engineering Works (P) Ltd., a contractor of M/s Vendanta

Limited, Bhurkamunda, Jharsuguda, is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to ?”

2. After receipt of aforesaid reference from the Government, the Workman had filed his

statement of claim on dated the 25th October 2021. The case of the Workman in brief is that, he

was appointed as a Driver (LMV) w.e.f. the 1st September 2013. His place of employment was at

JSG-CPP against W.O. No. 6600002416/2418, dated the 1st April 2013 His monthly salary was

Rs.7,500 as per the Appointment Letter, which increased to Rs.14,180 after increment. The normal

working hours followed by the Company for all the shifts is of 8 hours including the lunch and tea

break, but the Workman was working for 12 hours, which is evident from the Attendance Roll of the

Company.

2.1 It is also the case of the Workman that, he was terminated from his job on

dated the 27th April 2018 for absenting himself from duty without prior permission/application, as

alleged by the First Party—Management. The ground on which the Workman was terminated was

not just, proper and legal, as he had been regularly tendering his service and duty as a Driver

(LMV). He was not given any opportunity to prove his innocence and was flatly terminated from his

job. Although, he was regular in his duty from dated the 24th March 2018, he has not been paid his

salary for the last two months and was terminated from his service violating the principle of natural

justice.

2.2 It is also the case of the Workman that the First Party—Management No. 2 has been

made a party in this case, as it is the mother Company, which has sub-let works to the

First Party—Management No. 1 and the matter was intimated to the First Party—Management

No. 2 on dated the 11th April 2018, to which it remained silent.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed to notice both the First Parties, and

after due adjudication, to revoke the termination of the Workman, so also, to direct the

First Party—Management No.1 to pay his outstanding salary.

3. On the other hand, the First Party—Management No. 1 has filed its W.S. contending that

the workman was working under it (Company), and during the service period, his performance,

attitude and obedience towards the office superiors was not satisfactory, for which he was served

with caution notices several times. It is also contended that the Workman was absent from duty

without any intimation, which amounted to misconduct on his part. Even, after several letters and

notices were served upon him by hand and by Regd. Post, the workman willfully neglected to join

in his duty. Considering the long unauthorized absence of the workman, the Company was

constrained to strike off his name from the Roll. Thereafter, it settled all the dues and requested

him to receive the same as per the statutory provisions, but the Workman denied receiving the

same.

3.1 It is also contended that this First Party appeared before the Conciliation Officer-cum-

D.L.O., Jharsuguda at the instance of the Workman for conciliation of the matter. An amicable

settlement was arrived between the parties and the Workman received the payment of

Rs.19,878 in his Bank Account. As such, the termination of the present Workman was finally

settled after receipt of final dues as per statutory provisions. After final settlement, the D.L.O.,

Jharsuguda, instead of closing the matter has referred the same to the Government leading to the

present reference.

The First Party—Management No. 1 further submits that the Workman deliberately and

willfully neglected his duty for which several notices were issued to him for his gross negligence,

disobedience and misconduct. His negligence in duty caused irreparable loss to the Company, for

which he is liable for vital action by this First Party.

4. Similarly, the First Party—Management No. 2 has filed its W.S. contending that it is a

registered Company having its registered office at Mumbai. It is having Aluminium and Power

manufacturing units at Jharsuguda. It engages various service providers/Contractors for the purpose

of executing various functions. It is also contended that this First Party is a separate legal entity

under the Companies Act, having a perpetual succession and common seal. Likewise, the

First Party—Management No. 1 is another separate legal entity having no relationship with this

First Party No. 2. Both parties are separate and have separate Management altogether.

4.1 The First Party No. 1 has been providing services to the First Party No. 2 by engaging

its own staff. This First Party No. 2 has no power of appointment of the employees for the

First Party No. 1. Similarly, it lacks jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against the employees

of the First Party No. 1. There is no jural relationship of master and servant between this First

Party No. 2 and the workman. This First Party No. 2 has not received any notice relating to the

alleged grievance of the workman. That apart, there is no specific allegation against this First

Party No. 2 in this matter. As such, this First Party No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party

to this case.

4.2 It is also contended that this First Party No. 2 was only asked to be present for the

conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, it was informed about nothing and received Notice from this

Court, dated the 27th March 2023 relating to this case. In the instant case, the First Party No. 1 has

terminated the Workman duly in accordance with the statutory provisions and principle of natural

justice. The workman has been provided ample opportunities to rectify his continuous misconduct

and unauthorized absence by the First Party No. 1. After finding no appropriate response from the

Workman, the First Party No. 1 duly struck off his name from its Roll. Hence, the termination of the

Workman is legally justified. The First Party No. 1 has already paid the Workman all his statutory

dues. With the above contention, it is prayed to dismiss this case.

The Workman has filed his rejoinder to the W.S. of the First Party No. 2 admitting some of

the averments and denying some other.

5. Out of the pleading of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the termination of service of Shri Pappu Prasad Sharma, Driver (HMV)

w.e.f. the 27th April 2018 by M/s Chennai Radha Engineernig Works Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of

M/s Vedanta Limited, Bhurkamunda, Jharsuguda is legal and /or justified ?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

6. In order to prove this case, the Workman has examined himself as W.W. No.1. He has

also exhibited documents marked as Ext. 1 to Ext. 7. On the other hand, in spite of sufficient

opportunities being given, none of the First Party—Managements either adduce any oral evidence

or any documentary evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Workman has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High

Court reported in 2011 (Supp. II) OLR-511 Somanath Gouda and another Vrs. Smt. Sunkari

Mutylamma (dead), her LRs Sunkari Sanjeeva and others in support of the case of the workman.

7. Issue No. (i)—This issue being the important and vital issue is taken first for consideration.

The specific pleading of the workman in the present reference is termination of his job w.e.f. the

27th April 2018 without prior permission/application vide Ext. 4.The Workman has proved his

Appointment Letter vide Ext. 1, which discloses that he was appointed by the First Party No. 1

w.e.f. the 17th November 2012 and thereafter, he had been designated as “Driver (LMV)” w.e.f. the

1st September 2013. It also discloses that his place of employment was at JSG-CPP and he was

to be deployed under any one Department according to the site requirement. Ext. 1 also contains

the salary break-up, as well as, the terms and conditions of employment.

It is also the specific pleading of the Workman that the grounds on which he was terminated,

was not just, proper and legal, as he had been regularly attending his duty and rendering his

service. He has also pleaded that without any opportunity being given to him to prove his innocence;

he was flatly terminated from his job by the First Party No. 1. As W.W. No. 1, the Workman has

proved the above pleading in his examination-in-chief. Although, the W.W. No. 1 has been cross-

examined by the learned Counsel for the First Party No.1 in part, no question has been put to him

regarding the above evidence of W.W. No. 1.

7.1 The document vide Ext. 3 is the written submission of facts by the First Party No. 1

before the D.L.O., Jharsuguda further to the conciliation proceeding held in the office of the D.L.O.,

Jharsuguda held on dated the 28th May 2019. Admittedly, this document discloses some allegations

against the Workman leveled by the First Party No. 1. But surprisingly, the W.W. No. 1 has not with

held the same and exhibited the same before this Court. Now, this Court, in absence of positive

evidence to that effect, cannot believe the allegation made against the Workman in Ext. 3. Rather,

this shows the bonafideness of the Workman.

7.2 At Para. 16 of his cross-examination, the W.W. No.1 has been cross-examined by the

learned Counsel for the First Party No. 1 regarding the shifts, which was in vogue at the worksite,

where the Workman was working. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the Workman to

disbelieve his testimoney, or to believe the allegations made against him on Ext. 3.

Now, Ext. 4 is the sevice Termination Letter issued in favour of the Workman by the First

Party No. 1. It shows that earlier another three letters were issued to him by the First Party No. 1.

But, as stated earlier, the First parties have not led any evidence in support of their claims to prove

the allegations leveled against the Workman, on Ext. 4 also.

7.3 Ext. 5 is the Transport Attendance Sheet of the Workman, which discloses that he was

on duty from dated the 22nd March 2018 to dated the 31st March 2018 in different shifts. Ext. 7 is

the Manpower Details of the Company containing the name of the Workman at Sl. No. 5 under the

category of HMV and LMV-Driver and showing “12 hours” in the last column. This corroborates the

claim of the Workman that he was working for 12 hours in the Company instead of normal working

of 8 hours, in absence of any contrary evidence to that effect.

7.4 Moreover, Ext. 4 (Termination Order) also discloses that, the First Party No. 1 had

noticed, as well as, the Attendance Register of Workman shows that he had been absenting

himself from duty without prior permission/application from dated the 27th April 2018. The third

paragraph of this document also discloses that the service of the Workman automatically stood

terminated w.e.f. the 27th April 2018. It is pertinent to mention that this Ext. 4 had been issued on

dated the 28th May 2018, i.e., after one month from the date of termination of Workman. But

interestingly, the document vide Ext. 8 (series), which are the Attendance Sheet of the workman,

show that he had attended duty on the 27-04-2018, 28-04-2018, 29-04-2018, 30-04-2018,

03-05-2018, 04-05-2018, 05-05-2018, 06-05-2018, 07-05-2018, 11-05-2018, 14-05-2018,

17-05-2018, 18-05-2018, 19-05-2018, 20-05-2018, 25-05-2018, 26-05-2018, 27-05-2018,

28-05-2018, 31-05-2018, 01-06-2018, 02-06-2018, 03-06-2018, etc..

7.5 There are also some other dates, which are not legible. But one thing common in all the

above noted Attendance Sheets is that the Workman had all along entered the Plant premises at

6.00 a.m. and had left the same at 6.00 P.M..The above evidence very much indicates that the

Workman was working for 12 hours on each day. Although the above Ext. 8 (series) has been

marked with objection by the learned Counsel for the First Party No. 1, no question has been put to

W.W. No. 1 during his cross-examination in this regard. This Court finds nothing to disbelieve

Ext. 8 (series).

7.6 In its W.S., the First Party No. 1 has contended that the Workman was absent from

duty without any intimation to the office. Even after several letters, Notices were served by hand

and by R.P., the workman neglected to join the work place. Taking the aforesaid long unauthorized

absence, the Company was constrained to strike off his name from the Roll. As stated earlier, the

First Party No. 1 has not proved his pleading by bringing his witness to the witness box. All its

allegations against the Workman have ramained as bald allegations. It is not forthcoming if any

Domestic Enquiry had been conducted by the First Party No. 1 against the Workman on such

allegations. But, before this Court also, the First Party No. 1 has failed to prove such allegations

against him.

7.7 No copy of letters, Notices, Postal-receipts, etc. showing the alleged communication

by the First Party No. 1 with the Workman has been proved by it before this Court. In such a

situation, this Court cannot believe the allegations leveled against the Workman. Nothing, even a

scrap of paper has been filed/proved/relied upon by the First Party No. 1 against the Workman in

this case. Rather, all the above evidence on record corroborates the pleading and evidence of the

workman that, without any reasonable opportunity being provided to submit his reply/answer, he

has been flatly terminated by the First Party No. 1, as alleged by him.

7.8 As it appears to this Court, the principle of natural justice had been violated while

terminating the present Workman from his job by the First Party No. 1. This is very much clear

from the evidence on record. If any misconduct had been done by the Workman, the same had to

be dealt with the existing Rules and Regulations of the First Party No. 1. But without following the

same, the First Party No.1 had terminated the Workman w.e.f. the 27th April 2018, which is illegal

and unjustified.

7.9 It is admitted fact that the First Party No.1 has been providing services to

First Party No. 2 by engaging its own staff, as has been pleaded by the First Party No. 2. It is also

Pleaded that the First Party No. 2 has no power of appointment of any employee of the First Party

No. 1, and it also cannot take disciplinary action against the employees of First Party No. 1. However,

the way in which the First Party No. 2, in its pleading, has supported the action of First Party No. 1

against the Workman, shows that both the parties had joined hands to terminate the Workman

from employment. Like that of First Party No. 1, the First Party No. 2 has also not adduced any

evidence in this case. As such, both the First Party—Managements are responsible for termination

of the job of the Workman.

In the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel of the Workman, i.e., Somanath Gouda

and another (supra), it is held by the Hon’ble Court that non-examination of the party to lis would

lead to drawal of an adverse inference against it, which is very much applicable to the present

case. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the Workman and against the

First Party—Managements.

8. Issue No. (ii)— In view of the fact that the Issue No. (i) being decided in favour of the

Workman, now it is to be seen that what relief/reliefs he is entitled to receive. As the termination of

the Workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified, as per the settled law, he is to be reinstated

in his previous post with full back wages, although not claimed by him in his statement of claim.

In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vrs. K.J.A. Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others (2013)

10 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Apex Court has set forth detailed guidelines at Para. 33 of the said

judgment, which are to be followed while awarding or not, reinstatement with continuity of sevice

and back wages, in case of wrongful termination of service. In Para. 33 (i) of the said judgment, it

has been held that “In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of

service and back wages is the normal rule”. The Hon’ble Court has also set forth other guidelines

to be followed in such situation.

8.1 The instant case is an example,where without following the principal of natural justice

and violating the same, the Workman has been terminated by both the First Party—Managements,

particularly by First Party No. 1. So, he is to be reinstated in his job with full back wages from the

alleged date of his termination by First Party No. 1. So, he is to be reinstated in his job with full back

wages from the alleged date of his termination.

From the above analysis of evidence of record, both oral and documentary; and the

ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, this Court is of

considered view that workman Pappu Prasad Sharma is entitled for reinstatement with continuity

of service with full back wages since the date of his illegal termination. As such, such order is

required to be passed by this Court and this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Workman

and against the First Party—Managements.

Hence, it is awarded as follows:

AWARD

The reference, as scheduled above, by the Government of Odisha in Labour & ESI

Department, is answered on contest against both the First party—Managements and in favour of

Workman Shri Pappu Prasad Sharma. The termination of service of Shri Sharma

w.e.f. the 27th April 2018 by First Party No. 1, a Contractor of First Party No. 2, is illegal and

unjustified.

The First Party—Management No. 1 i.e., M/s Chennai Radha Engineering Works (Private)

Ltd., is hereby directed to reinstate Workman Shri Pappu Prasad Sharma in his post of

Driver (LMV), as he was doing at the time of his illegal termination, with full back wages and all

statutory benefits.

Dictated and corrected by me.

R. N. DAS

11-12-2024

Presiding Officer

Labour Court, Sambalpur

[No. 10856—LESI-IR-ID-0006/2021-LESI]

By order of the Governor

NITIRANJAN SEN

Additional Secretary to Government

List of witness examined on behalf of the Second Party—workman:

W.W.1 : Shri Pappu Prasad Sharma

List of witness examined on behalf of the First party—Management 1 & 2:

-Nil-

List of documents marked as exhibits on behalf of the Second Party—workman:

Ext.1: Copy of Letter of Appointment, dated the 1st September 2019 of workman issued by

First party—Management No. 1

Ext.2: Copy of wage slip of workman for the month of December, 2017 issued by

First party—Management No. 1

Ext.3: Copy of written submission of facts issued by the First party—Management No.1 to the

D.L.O., Jharsuguda on the date 18th June 2019

Ext.4: Copy of Termination Order of workman issued by the First party—Management No. 1

Ext.5: Copy of Transport Attendance Sheet for the month of March, 2018

Ext.6: Copy of Transaction Enquiry relating to salary of workman received from the

First party—Management No. 1

Ext.7: Copy of ManPower details containing the name of workman as a HMV Driver

Ext.8: Copies of Attendance Sheets of Workman

List of documents marked as exhibits on behalf of the First party—Management:

-Nil-

Printed and Published by the Director,Directorate of Printing, Stationery and Publication,Odisha, Cuttack-10

Ex.Gaz.1758—173+9