The Odisha

G a z e t t e

EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 1393 CUTTACK, WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2025/JAISTHA 7, 1947

LABOUR & E.S.I. DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

The 21st May 2025

S.R.O. No. 302/2025—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947), the Award dated the 20th March 2025 passed in the ID Case No. 16 of 2022 [under

Section 2-A(2)] passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on the industrial

dispute between Mr. Samir Jena, Proprietor of M/s Subham Associates, At Bypass New Colony,

Mukunda Prasad, P.O. P.N. College, Dist. Khurda, 2. The Factory Manager, M/s Indo Nissin Food

Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. A/2, Food Processing Park, Industrial Estate, Khurda-752057, 3. The Proprietor,

M/s Zed King Security Services, B-142, HIG, BDA Duplex, At Baramunda, Bhubaneswar,

Dist. Khurda, Odisha and Shri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, S/o Sidheswar Pradhan, At Chhiam,

P.S. Gadamanatri, P.S. Begunia, Dist. Khurda is hereby published as in the schedule below :—

SCHEDULE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 16 of 2022

Dated the 20th March 2025

Present :

Smt. Meenakshee Priyadarsinee,

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

Between :

1. Mr. Samir Jena,

. .

First Party—Managements

Proprietor of M/s Subham Associates,

At Bypass New Colony,

Mukunda Prasad, P.O. P.N. College,

Dist. Khurda.

2. The Factory Manager,

M/s Indo Nissin Food Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. A/2, Food Processing Park,

Industrial Estate, Khurda-752057.

3. The Proprietor,

M/s Zed King Security Services,

B-142, HIG, BDA Duplex,

At Baramunda, Bhubaneswar,

Dist. Khurda, Odisha.

And.

Shri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan,

. .

Second Party—Workman

S/o Sidheswar Pradhan,

At Chhiam, P.S. Gadamanatri,

P.S. Begunia, Dist. Khurda.

Appearances :

None

. .

For the First Party Management.

Shri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan

. .

The Second Party himself

AWARD

This is an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short

‘the Act’) preferred by the second party challenging the action of the first party management No.1

in terminating his service by way of refusal of employment w.e.f. the 21st February 2021 as illegal

and unjustified with a prayer for his reinstatement in service with full back wages, continuity of

service and other consequential service benefits.

2. The case of the second party as depicted in his claim statement may succinctly be

stated thus:

On being deployed by the management No.1 (outsourcing agency) he was engaged under

the management No.2 in its packing section w.e.f. the 15th November 2014 and while continuing

as such he was thrown out from his service by way of refusal of employment by the management

No.1 w.e.f. the 21st February 2021. The claim statement of the second party speaks that during

his incumbency he was extended the benefits of EPF and E.S.I. Schemes. According to the second

party he has rendered service to the management Nos. 1 and 2 for more than 240 days in each

calendar year of his employment under them. But, he has been terminated from his service by

keeping aside the provisions stipulated in the ID Act. So, he had moved the labour machinery in

relation to his termination from service for his intervention. Upon his complaint petition, notices

came to be issued to the parties by the A.L.O., Khurda, but no settlement was arrived at between

them as the contractor and the Principal Employer did not co-operate for the same and in the

meantime more than 45 days have been elapsed from the date of filing of his complaint. So, the

second party finding no other way out was constrained to knock the door of this forum directly as

per the provisions enumerated under Section 2-A(2) of the Act with the aforesaid prayer.

3. As the managements during hearing of the case did not opt to participate, they were set

ex parte vide order dated the 28th February 2025.

4. Before proceeding further it is trite to mention here that in order to claim any benefit

under ID Act the claimant has to prove two ingredients at the first instance which are as follows:—

(a) There exists relationship of employer-employee between the parties; and

(b) The claimant has rendered continuous service under his employer for a period of

240 days, so as to seek protection of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act.

At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that the second party with regard to his

present case has not only examined himself as W.W. No.1 but also placed reliance upon five

numbers of documents under Exts.1 to 5 out of which Exts.1 and 2 are the photocopies of his

I Card and E-Pehchan Card and the same reveals that the management No.1 was his employer

and his date of joining under it was on the 9th January 2015, but not the 15th November 2014 as

alleged. So, there is no iota of doubt in the mind of his Court that the management No.1 was the

immediate employer of the second party. Besides that the plea of the second party regarding his

engagement under the management No. 2 on being sponsored by the management No.1 as an

Outsourcing Agency, not being challenged stands undisputed. In this connection, it is apt to mention

here that as the managements did not appear during hearing of the case they were set ex parte.

So,it is well presumed that the management No. 2 is the principal employer of the second party.

On the face above, it is clear that there exists employee-employers relationship between the second

party and the management Nos. 1 & 2. Similarly, it is the consistent case of the second party

throughout the case record that he has worked under the management No. 2 being provided by the

management No.1 for the period from the 15th November 2014 to the 21st February 2021 and also

completed more than 240 days of continuous work in each calendar year during the above period.

Such contention of the second party remained unchallenged being not rebutted by the management

Nos.1 and 2 by appearing themselves during hearing of the case so also by producing documentary

evidence to that effect. The management being remained ex parte nothing adverese is available

before this Court to disbelieve the version of the second party . So, in absence of opposition, if any

from the side of the managements this Court under compulsion has to accept the assertion of the

second party that his engagement under the management No. 2 by the management No. 1 is

continuation one. Accordingly, it is held that the second party is coming within the purview of

Section 25-F of the Act and is protected thereunder as well. But, no document is available on the

case record to show that while terminating the services of the second party by way of refusal of

employment by the management No. 1 necessary compliance of the provisions of ID Act was

adhered by it.

Considering the unchallenged testimony of the second party together with the documentary

evidence, as disussed above, the conclusion is inevitable that in spite of rendering continuous

service of more than 240 days under the first party management Nos. 1 and 2 the services of the

second party have been terminated from services by way of refusal of employment in clear

contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the fitness of things, the

action of the management No. 1 in terminating the second party from his service by way of refusal

is held to be neither legal nor justified.

In view of the finding arrived above, the next question which falls for determination is as to

what relief the second party is entitled to. In the instant dispute, the second party admitted to have

been engaged under the management No. 2 as an outsourcing employee.In the context, it is

profitable to refer to a decision of our own Hon’ble High Court in the case of General Secretary,

North Orissa Workers’ Union Vrs. Superintendent, Prospecting Division and another [2019 (160)

FLR 947], wherein their Lordships by referring to a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court

held that in a case of daily wager monetary compensation is the appropriate relief instead of

reinstatement. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Vrs. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board and another, in Civil Appeal No. 4334 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP

No. 987/2009), reported in 2009(4) LLJ 336(SC) held that “if the termination of an employee is

found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. But

compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice in appropriate

cases”.

Taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in the above cases,

the status of the second party, his engagement period and age, this Court feels it proper to award

a monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in favour of the second party instead

of the relief of his reinstatement and back wages. In view of sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the management No. 2 being the principal

employer of the second party is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to him (second party) within

a period of one month of date of publication of the award or else to pay interest @ 6% per annum

on the said amount till it is actually disbursed to him.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

MEENAKSHEE PRIYADARSINEE

20-03-2025

Presiding Officer

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

__________

[No. 4950—LESI-IR-ID-0028/2025-LESI]

By order of the Governor

MADHUMITA NAYAK

Special Secretary to Government

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

Ex. Gaz. 603–173+9