The Odisha

G a z e t t e

EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 914 CUTTACK, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2025/CHAITRA 26, 1947

LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

The 8th April 2025

S.R.O. No. 214/2025—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947), the Award dated the 1st March 2025 passed in the I.D. Case No. 25 of 2024 by the

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

M/s ORIFEB Industries, A/33, Industrial Estate, Madhupatna, Khapuria, Cuttack and Shri Dhirendra

Kumar Das (Ex-Welder) S/o Late Kelu Charan Das, Vill. Turukha P.O. Jhankad, P.S. Tritol,

Dist. Jagatsinghpur, C/o President, Khapuria Silpanchal Karmachari Sangha, Dattatreya Bhawan,

Plot No. D/476, Sector-8, CDA, Cuttack was referred for adjudication is hereby published in the

schedule below :—

SCHEDULE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 25 of 2024

Dated the 1st March 2025

Present :

Smt. Meenakshee Priyadrasinee

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Between :

M/s ORIFEB Industries, A/33,

. .

First Party—Management

Industrial Estate,

Madhupatna, Khapuria,

Cuttack.

And

Shri Dhirendra Kumar Das (Ex-Welder)

. .

Second Party—Workman

S/o Late Kelu Charan Das,

Vill. Turukha P.O. Jhankad, P.S. Tritol,

Dist. Jagatsinghpur.

C/o President, Khapuria Silpanchal Karmachari

Sangha, Dattatreya Bhawan, Plot No. D/476,

Sector-8, CDA, Cuttack.

Appearances :

None

. .

For the First Party—Management

Dhirendra Kumar Das

. .

The Second Party—himself

AWARD

The Government of Odisha in the Labour & E.S.I. Department in exercise of powers

conferred upon it by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) have referred the following

dispute for adjudication by this Court vide their Memo. No. 5733/LESI, dated the 31st July 2024 :

SCHEDULE

“whether the action of the management of M/s ORIFEB Industries, A/33, Industrial

Estate, Madhupatana, Cuttack in terminating the service of the workman Shri Dhirendra

Kumar Das, Ex- Welder with effect from the 7th July 2020 is legal and/or justified ? If

not what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the second party workman as emerge from

his claim statement is that, the 2nd party workman was initially engaged as a ‘Welder’ by the 1st

party management, but with effect from the April 2011 he was provided with regular work. A list of

employees stated to have prepared by the management during inspection of E.S.I. Authority wherein

the name of the second party is not only found place but also his wages was mentioned @

Rs. 5,400 per month, but the same was enhanced from time to time. Accordingly, the last drawn

salary of the second party was fixed @ Rs. 13,245 per month. It is averred in the claim statement

that on the 6th July 2020 all of sudden the second party was told that his service was no more

required from tomorrow. At this the sudden party was not allowed to perform his work with effect

from the 7th July 2020 which amounts to his termination by way of refusal of employment. But it is

alleged that the management while terminating him from service has not comlied the statutory

provisions of the I.D. Act. The second party, thereafter put forth his grievance before the management

for his reinstatement in serivce, but to no avail. So, the second party consequent upon his termination

from serivce had moved the concerned D.L.O through his union which culminated into present

reference.

3. Upon filing of the present case by the second party notice was issued to the management

for for its appearance so also for filing of WS. Depite that as the management neither filed its WS,

if any nor participated during hearing of the case it was set ex parte vide Order No. 09, dated the

3rd February 2025.

4. During ex parte hearing the 2nd party while examined himself as WW No.1 has also

placed reliance on certain document which are marked as Exts. 1 to 3.

FINDINGS

5. Basing upon the pleading advanced in the statement of claim, the second party has also

filed his affidavit evidence in this case and while examining as WW No. 1 by way of such affidavit

evidence stated to have engaged as ‘Welder’ under the management for the period from January

2021 to the 7th July 2021. As it appears, the second party with regard to his present claim in

dispute has relied upon three numbers of documents, out of which Exts. 1 and 2 are the photocopies

of his Identity Card and inspection report dated the 12th March 2014 made by Social Security

Officer of Employees State Insurance Corporation Inspection Division, Cuttack respectively.

A perusal of Ext. 1 it would reveal that the same has been issued by the management in favour of

the second party as a ‘Welder’ Similarly Ext. 2 gives a rise that the second party was working

under the management since January 2011. So, there is no hindrance to hold that the second

party was an employee under the management.

The second party further deposed that he has completed more than 240 days of continuous

service under the management preceding the date of his termination by way of refusal of

employment. He was accordingly, protected by the provisions of I.D. Act, but the management

terminated him from service in the guise of refusal of employment with effect from the 7th July

2020 in clear contravention of the provisions stipulated under Section 25-F of the Act. Such action

of the management according to the second party is illegal as well as unjustified due to

non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. The second party therefore, has prayed for his

reinstatement in service with full back wages coupled with terminal benefits till the date of attaining

the age of 60 years.

At the cost of repetition, it is apposite to mention here that in the instant case the

management did not opt to contest the claim of the second party by filing its WS or through any

cogent documentary evidence. Rather, the management remained silent over the present case in

dispute despite issuance of notice to it by this Court. So, this Court had no option than to set them

ex parte in this case. Accordingly, nothing adverse is available before this Court to disbelieve the

version of the second party. Hence, this Court compelled to accept the plea of the second party to

the effect that the management refused him employment with effect from the 7th July 2020 which

amounts to termination from service and he has completed more than 240 days of continuous

service under the management preceding the date of his termination, for which he was entitled to

the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. But, there is nothing on record disclosing that the

management has ever complied the provisions embodied under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act while

terminating the second party from his service and the said termination being made without

compliance of I.D. Act is apparently illegal and unjustified.

On the face of above, it is next to see as to what relief the second party is entitled to in view

of his illegal termination from service. As per the second party he has already reached the age of

superannuation. Taking the aforesaid fact into consideration, the relief of reinstatement and back

wages, in my considered view, would not be appropriate to be awarded in favour of the second

party and instead some compensation would be the just and proper relief in the present proceeding.

So, ongoing through the status of the second party, his engagement period, his last drawn salary

and his age the management is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees

Three Lakhs) only to the second party within a period of two months of the date of publication of the

Award, failing which the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the second party would

carry a simple interest of 6% per annum till it is paid to him.

The case is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

MEENAKSHEE PRIYADRASINEE

1-03-2025

Presiding Officer

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

[No. 3431—LESI-IR-ID-0101/2021-LESI]

By order of the Governor

MADHUMITA NAYAK

Additional Secretary to Government

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

Ex. Gaz. 124–173+9