Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 965 (ORI)

Pramod Kumar Mohanty v. Union of India

2016-10-24

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 4.8.2000 issued under the signature of Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India whereby and where under, the appropriate Government has refused to refer the dispute being devoid of merit. 2. According to the petitioner he is a poor landless person and under Matric who could not continue his education due to poverty, having no other way out to earn his livelihood had joined as attendant-cum-Sweeper under the management of M/s. National Co-operative Corporation under the supervision of opposite party no.3 w.e.f. 12.12.1984 against permanent vacant post and was getting Rs.900/- per month. 3. The management had engaged the petitioner in a permanent vacant post and paid the petitioner full minimum wages of unskilled persons and took 12 hours duty in a day, the petitioner had completed more than 240 days continuous employment in a 12 calendar months. The petitioner while continuing as unskilled casual labour and Sweeper since 12.12.1984, tried his level best to satisfy all his superior officer by his sincerity. But without appreciating this, he has been terminated from service after allowing him to render service for 12 years against which he has made appropriate representation before the authorities regarding redressal of his grievance but no result has come, having no way the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asst. Labor Commissioner (Central) which in turn has asked the management to furnish reply to the same and after going through the reply, the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C) has found that the management did not agree with respect to the claim of the workman and as such submitted a failure report before the appropriate government in exercise of power conferred under Article 12(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the appropriate Government after exercising its jurisdiction conferred under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act has passed order on 4.8.2000 whereby and where under the reason for not making reference has been assigned stating therein that the workman had stopped attending the work himself and did not turned up for work after 14.1.1996. The dispute does not subsist. 4. The dispute does not subsist. 4. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has argued the case vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the appropriate Government has taken just and proper decision for the reason that the workman could not establish his termination as illegal rather he himself had stopped attending the work and did not turned up after 14.1.1996, after lapse of about 4 years, claim has been made to allow him to discharge his duty as would be evident from his representation dated 8.3.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the appropriate Government with a specific reason has passed the order by exercising its jurisdiction conferred under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, 1947, hence the same needs no interference. 5. It has been submitted that at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 38 years and as on date he is aged about 54 years even otherwise also no purpose would be served in passing any positive order in favour of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, it is evident that the petitioner has raised his grievance before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) under the provision of Section 12(4), the Conciliation Officer in exercise of power conferred to him has submitted that the petitioner himself had stopped attending the work and did not turned up for work after 14.1.1996. 7. The Conciliation Officer after reading two conclusions found that there is no likelihood of settlement the dispute, has submitted a failure report in exercise of power conferred under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act before the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government in exercise of power under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act has refused to make reference by assigning the reason. Section 12(5) confers power upon the appropriate Government that if, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. The appropriate Government, the Central Government herein, being satisfied with the reason of not making reference has passed the order impugned dated 4.8.2000. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that appropriate Government is supposed to adjudicate the dispute but it does not mean that the appropriate Government is only to act as a post office and in routine manner to make reference under provision of Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, it is evident that in case the appropriate Government does not make such reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. 9. The impugned order dated 4.8.2000 contains the reason of not making reference that the workman had stopped attending the work himself and did not turned up for work after 14.1.1996. 10. The appropriate Government after taking into consideration the stand of the management has refused to make reference in exercise of power under Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act where on examination of the impugned order dated 4.8.2000 and by going through the statutory provision as contained in Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act. 1947 and also considering the fact that the workman had stopped attending the work himself and did not turned up after 14.1.1996 and after lapse of four years, the dispute has been raised, hence we find that no illegality has been committed by the authority in passing the order dated 4.8.2000. 11. Taking into consideration that the appropriate Government has arrived at a valid reason in passing the impugned order, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.