Orissa High Court
Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Presiding Officer on 16 September, 2021
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5186 of 2002
Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, .... Opp. Parties
Bhubaneswar and another
Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 16.09.2021
04. Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. has filed this petition against an Award dated 1st August, 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.62 of 1992 holding that the dismissal of Opposite Party No.2 Workman by the Petitioner-Management with effect from 16th October, 1989 was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with certain other incidental directions.
2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 9th December, 2002 this Court stayed the impugned Award. That stay order has continued since. Today, the Court was informed that Opposite Party No.2 Workman has expired during pendency of the present petition. He will have to be substituted Page 1 of 23 by his legal representatives (LRs). However, in view of the decision of the Court today, it is directed that the substitution of the Workman by his LRs can take place in the consequential proceedings hereafter in the Labour Court.
3. The background facts are that the Workman joined the Management Bank as Junior Assistant on 18th July, 1987. He was a Cashier in the Main Branch of the Bank. The Bank's case is that on 9th July 1988, while the Workman was in- charge of the payment counter of the cash section, he made payment against a cheque which turned out to be a fake one and bore a false Savings Bank account number; the cheque was signed by a person who had no such account with the Bank. It was alleged by the Management that the Workman had misappropriated the amount by manipulating the records and thus defrauded the Bank. The Management further contended that the Workman admitted his guilt and paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. On the above allegations, the Workman was first placed under suspension on 24th July, 1988 and on 25th October, 1998 a charge sheet was issued to him.
4. On 31st October, 1988 the Workman filed an application seeking supply of documents. The Bank did not accede to the request but on 12th November, 1988 informed him to come to the Bank for inspection of the documents. According to the Bank, the Workman did not file reply to the charge sheet.
Page 2 of 235. The Bank held a domestic enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer (EO) on 5th January, 1989. At the sitting of the EO on 24th January, 1989 the Workman did not appear and the proceeding was adjourned to 8th February, 1989. According to the Management, the Workman appeared on 8th February, 1989 submitted a reply but left the proceeding without participating. On the next date, i.e. 8th August, 1989 the Workman appeared but according to the Management did not respond to the question posed to him and left the proceedings.
6. The EO submitted a report holding the charges against the Workman proved. A second show cause was issued to the Workman on 31st August, 1989 and a personal hearing was offered. It is stated that the Workman appeared on 16th October, 1989 but did not answer the questions put to him and left the proceedings which were then closed. On 1st November, 1989 the Secretary of the Bank issued an order dismissing the Workman from service with effect from 16th October, 1989.
7. The appeal against the above order was dismissed on 24th March, 1990.
8. The Workman raised an industrial dispute. On the failure of the conciliation proceedings, a reference was made by the Page 3 of 23 appropriate Government on 24th April, 1992 to the Labour Court to decide the following question:
"Whether the action taken by the management of the Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Cuttack in dismissing Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo w.e.f. 16.10.89 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
9. On 6th July, 1992 the Workman filed a statement of claim to which the Management replied on 26th March, 1993. The Management insisted that it is the Workman who had to first lead evidence.
10. On 1st December, 1994 the EO examined the Management Witness No.1 (MW-1) and adjourned the case. It is stated that between 1995-2002 the Workman was employed with the Panchayati Raj Department and that the proceeding in the Labour Court "lay dormant".
11. On 28th June, 2002 the Management filed two applications:
one for a direction to the Workman to lead evidence first and the second to recall MW-1 for proving the cheque even before MW-1 would be cross-examined.
12. By a detailed order dated 5th July, 2002 the Labour Court dismissed both applications. As far as the first application is concerned, the Labour Court observed as under:
Page 4 of 23"I have gone through the record. The record reveals that Nilakantha Das, M.W.1 was examined on 1.12.94. At that stage the management did not object and produce the witness. Once the witness of a party has already been produced and his examination-in-chief has been recorded, I am of the view that after a lapse of 8 years the management cannot take the plea that the workman should begin the evidence first. Accordingly, the prayer of the management to direct the workman to lead evidence first stands rejected."
13. As far as second application is concerned, but the same order dated 5th July, 2002 while rejecting the application it has held as under:
"In para 4 of the petition of the management it is stated that "the enquiry report and the order sheet of the enquiry (both marked as exhibits) all the detailed particulars have been mentioned. Hence the predecessor who recorded the evidence at the time of M.W.1 did not call upon the petitioner to file the cheque in question which is a vital document". The learned counsel for the management clarified that.
"Predecessor means the predecessor of the Court" which means the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the management indirectly desires to lead additional evidence to patch up the lacuna.
I am surprised how the management could say that the then Presiding Officer did not call upon the management to produce the cheque. I am also Page 5 of 23 surprised as to how such aspersion could be made by the learned counsel for the management. Mr. A.C. Mohanty who has filed the petition on behalf of the management and this aspersion appears to be most unfair. Admittedly on 1.1.94, 30 documents were exhibited and the record do not speak that the Court called upon the management to produce these documents. The prayer of the management to recall M.W.1 for re-examination, before cross-examination by the workman, stands rejected. However if the situation so arises the management may renew its prayer afresh after the cross-examination of M.W. 1 by the workman."
14. Both the above orders attained finality since the Management did not challenge them further. Nevertheless, the Management did not produce MW-1 before the Labour court for cross-examination by the workman. On 26th July, 2002 in the above scenario the Labour Court passed the following orders:
"The workman is present with his advocate and filed hazira. A petition has been filed by the advocate for the management to adjourn the case to some other date on the ground of illness of the Advocate. On the body of the petition "the other side advocate has been informed over phone and he has no objection" has been written. The advocate for the workman submitted that the advocate for the management had informed him over phone but it is not correct that the advocate for the workman had consented. Therefore it must be presumed that the workman has objection to the said petition.Page 6 of 23
The record reveals that the case has been fixed to today for payment of cost. Since the cost as ordered previously has not been paid the prayer for further adjournment stands rejected. The record further reveals that the witness Nilakantha Das was examined in-chief on 1.12.94 and he was not produced for cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence recorded in-chief stands expunged. Since there is no prayer from the side of the management to adduce any further evidence, the evidence from the side of the management is closed.
Call on 31.7.2002 for the evidence from the side of the workman. Parties are directed to come ready on the date fixed."
15. Undeterred the Management filed another application on 2nd August, 2002 for recalling the Workman and for permission to cross-examine him in terms of the order dated 5th July, 2002. This was done on day after the Award was pronounced by the Labour Court, and when the Labour Court had become functus officio by that time.
16. By the Award dated 1st August, 2002 the Labour Court addressed the following two issues:
"(i) whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper?
(ii) Is the punishment of dismissal with effect from 16.10.89 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief?"Page 7 of 23
17. The findings of the Labour Court on the above two issues were as under:
(i) "In spite of the fact that several opportunities were given to the management the said witness was not produced for cross-
examination by the workman. Therefore, the evidence of M.W.1 Nilakantha Das was expunged vide order dated 26.7.2002. Exts.1 to 30 have been marked on behalf of the management.
(ii) "The workman who has been examined as M.W.1 has categorically stated that the enquiry was not fair. He was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. Further from the date of suspension till the date of dismissal he was not paid subsistence allowance for which he could not be able to conduct and defend his case. Further going to the merit, the workman has stated that the verification of signature in the cheque was not his duty and it was the duty of the Assistant Accountant. The cheque was passed by the authorized person after verification of the specimen signature and he, in the capacity of Cashier in the counter on the production of token made payment to the person who produced the token. The token holder also signed on the reverse of the cheque. Even though the Bank took it a forgery and manipulation of record no police case has been registered to find out the real culprit. M.W.1 has specifically stated that he has never deposited a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards alleged wrong payment."
Page 8 of 23(iii) "I have gone through the exhibits and it is absolutely clear that no subsistence allowance has been paid to the workman during the period of suspension and non-payment of subsistence allowance is a major lacuna on the part of the management. Law is well settled that non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension vitiates the enquiry. The evidence of witnesses have not been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The management did not choose to examine the Enquiry Officer to establish the fact that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the workman to defend his case during enquiry."
(iv) "Therefore, the action taken by the management of the Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Cuttack in dismissing the workman Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo with effect from 10.10.89 is illegal and unjustified. Since Sri Sahoo has already been employed under the State Government in the Panchayati Raj Department he will be only entitled to the full wage from the date of suspension till the date of his employment under the State Government. The management is directed to implement the Award within one month from the date of publication of the Award failing the workman will be at liberty to get the Award implemented through process of law and in that case the workman will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% (fifteen percent) per annum from the date the amount became payable till the date of actual payment."
Page 9 of 2318. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
19. The main plank of the argument of Mr. Nanda was that the Labour Court had been swayed by an irrelevant issue regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance to the Workman which thus formed the main reason for the conclusion in the Award. If an Award is comprised of both relevant and irrelevant reasons, the entire Award must be held to be illegal. He placed reliance on the decision in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1955 SC
271. He contended that Award is based on no evidence. According to Mr. Nanda, the findings pertaining to misappropriation of the cheque, non-payment of subsistence allowance and lack of reasonable opportunity to the Workman during the domestic enquiry are vague. Mr. Nanda submitted that the findings regarding the enquiry report proceeded on surmises and conjectures defying logic. The non-filing of a police complaint by the Bank cannot be said to invalidate the order of dismissal.
20. Mr. Nanda submitted that the power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (ID Act) had to be exercised judicially. The findings in the domestic enquiry could be interfered with only if the Labour Court was satisfied that the Page 10 of 23 punishment was highly disproportionate. In this regard the degree of guilt of the Workman was relevant. concerned. In this context reliance is placed on the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade AIR 2005 SC 1993, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dhandapani AIR 2006 SC 615 and U.P. State Transport Corporation and others v. Gopal Shukla (2015) 17 SCC 603. Mr. Nanda submitted that the misconduct was a grave one in the context of the banking sector and the punishment awarded to the workman ought not to have been interfered with. He relied on the decision of S.B.I. v. Bela Bagchi AIR 2005 SC 3272, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy AIR 2005 SC 2769 and The General Manager (P) Punjab and Sind Bank v. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233.
21. Mere non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension would not amount to denial of opportunity and would not vitiate the domestic enquiry unless prejudice as a result thereof had been shown by the Workman. No such prejudice was pleaded anywhere in the statement of claim. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College, (2004) 1 SCC 281, State of M.P. v. Shankarlal, (2008) 2 SCC 55 and U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi, (2005) 8 SCC 211.
Page 11 of 2322. Relying on the findings of the enquiry report, Mr. Nanda submitted that the workman had in fact was provided an ample opportunity in the domestic enquiry. He deliberately withdrew himself in the proceedings. Therefore, the finding that no reasonable opportunity was granted to him was perverse and the contrary to the record. \
23. Lastly, Mr. Nanda accused the Labour Court of having committed procedural impropriety without affording the Management an opportunity to adduce evidence. He submitted that the proceedings were closed "abruptly" by the Labour Court on 31st July, 2002. He further submitted that the Award was passed by exercising the powers arbitrarily and was liable to be interfered with. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh AIR 1972 SC 1031, The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management AIR 1973 SC 1227, Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court AIR 1999 SC 698 and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329.
24. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Workman, on the other hand, supported the impugned Award pointing out that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the Management by the Labour Court to adduce evidence and to produce its witness for cross-examination. The Management refused to do Page 12 of 23 so and kept filing one application after another in order to frustrate the proceedings. He submitted that the Management failed to prove that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and therefore the inevitable conclusion was for the Labour Court to answer the reference in the negative.
25. The above submissions have been considered. First, it must be noted that the Management examined witness in MW 1 on 1st December, 1994. It was obliged to produce that witness for cross-examination by the Workman. As is evident from the record of the Labour Court, and the orders passed by it from time to time, the Management failed to produce its witness for such cross-examination. This is a crucial aspect of the matter since so much has been argued by Mr. Nanda about the unfairness of the procedure adopted by the Labour Court and the Award to be "perverse" and "arbitrary".
26. To begin with the scope of judicial review of the fairness of a domestic enquiry requires to be recapitulated. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd v. Ludh Budh Singh AIR 1972 SC 1031, the Supreme Court summarised the legal position as regards judicial review of a domestic enquiry. It was held that where the enquiry is found to be defective, the employer shall have to be given a chance to adduce evidence before the Labour Court or Tribunal for justifying its action provided the employer asks for permission of the Tribunal to Page 13 of 23 adduce fresh evidence to justify its action. Such request had to be made "while the proceedings are pending" and not after the proceedings had come to an end. The Supreme Court observed:
"(i) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the management, or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that may have been held by it, it is entitled to straight away adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it on merits, and give a decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not rely on it.
(ii) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry held by it in the first instance, and alternatively and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper and binding, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such a case no inference can be drawn, without anything more, that the management has given up the enquiry conducted by it.
(iii) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are Page 14 of 23 valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits no longer survives. It is only when the Tribunal holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by the management and decide the matter on the basis of such evidence.
(iv) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal with, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue, the validity of the domestic enquiry, If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will be that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the finding of Page 15 of 23 the domestic Tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.
(v) The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal. But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed of, or asked for by the management, before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did both provide such an opportunity.
The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings- recorded therein are also proper.
(vi) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider the Validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded there in and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is Page 16 of 23 not its function to invite suo motu the employer to adduce evidence before it to justify the action taken by it.
(vii) The above principles apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, which have come before it either on a reference under S. 10 or by way of an application under S. 33 of the Act."
27. This was reiterated in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer Labour Court (supra), where again it was explained as under:
"In view of the above, the legal position as emerges out is that in all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective, the Tribunal can call upon the Management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the Management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any ground at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If, however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the Management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence."
28. When examined in the light of the above principles, the Court is of the view that in in the present case, the conduct of the Management is tell-tale. It is evident that the Management repeatedly filed applications before the Labour Court in an Page 17 of 23 attempt to frustrate the progress of the proceedings in I.D. Case No.62 of 1992. Despite dismissal by the Labour Court of the management's application that the Workman should be examined first and that M.W.1 should be recalled for further examination even before the cross-examination, the Management refused to cooperate with the Labour Court by producing M.W.1 for cross examination. The Management is completely silent about its conduct. It has no reasonable explanation to offer why it failed to produce M.W.1 for cross- examination.
29. To be fair to the Labour Court, even while it dismissed on 5th July, 2002 the Management's application for recall of M.W.1 for examination in chief, it added: "however if the situation so arises the management will renew its prayer afresh after the cross examination of M.W.1 by the workman." There could not have been a fairer approach to the prayer of the Management. The said order dated 5th July, 2002 was not challenged by the Management and yet even thereafter it refused to cooperate in the proceedings in the Labour Court.
30. When one examines the order dated 26th July, 2002 it appears that order for payment of costs as directed on the previous date by the Labour Court, had not been paid and the M.W.1 had not been produced for cross-examination. In those circumstances the evidence of M.W.1 was expunged. The Page 18 of 23 Court finds no perversity in the said order of the Labour Court. Indeed, repeated stone-walling of the proceedings before the Labour Court by the Management inevitably resulted in the Labour Court having to close its evidence. The case was posted to 31st July 2002. This time the Management did not cross-examine the Workman who was examined on that date. The filing of applications by the Management continued unabated, even after the Award was pronounced.
31. For a reference that commenced on 24th April, 1992 it can be hardly stated that it was unfair on the part of the Labour Court to close the proceeding 10 years later when faced with the repeated attempts of the Management to frustrate the proceedings. In the above circumstances, the Labour Court therefore cannot be said to have committed any illegality or acted arbitrary.
32. It was incumbent the Management to prove the domestic enquiry was fair. Merely relying on the finding of the domestic enquiry would not help the management in this regard. It was only the proceeding of the Labour Court that the fairness of the domestic enquiry gets tested. In Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer Labour Court (supra) the Management in that case contended that in spite of the direction by the Labour Court to the Management to lead evidence, it was open to the Management to rely upon the domestic enquiry proceedings Page 19 of 23 already held by the Enquiry Officer, including the evidence recorded by him, and it was under no obligation to lead further evidence, particularly as the Management was of the view that the charges, on the basis of the evidence already led before the Enquiry Officer, stood proved. It was also contended that under Section 11-A, the Labour Court had to rely on the "materials on record" and since that enquiry proceedings constituted "material on record", the same could not be ignored. The Supreme Court negatived this plea and held:
"The argument is fallacious. The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry Would not constitute "fresh evidence" as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective. Such record would also not constitute "material on record", as contended by the counsel for the respondent, within the meaning of Section 11-A as the enquiry proceedings, on being found to be bad, have to be ignored altogether. The proceedings of the domestic enquiry could be, and, were, in fact, relied upon by the Management for the limited purpose of showing at the preliminary stage that the action taken against the appellant was just and proper and that full opportunity of hearing was given to her in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This contention has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held to be bad. In view of the nature of objections raised by the appellant, the record of enquiry held by the Management ceased to be "material on record' within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Act and the only course open to the Management was to justify its action by leading fresh evidence as required by the Labour Court. If such evidence Page 20 of 23 has not been led, the Management has to suffer the consequences."
33. Consequently, the Court finds that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Nanda to attack the Labour Court's Award as being perverse, arbitrary and based on no evidence have no application to the facts of the present case. Even the submission that the Labour Court had unfairly interfered with the punishment appears to be misplaced. Once Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was not proved to be fair and reasonable the inevitable conclusion was that the dismissal order itself was unsustainable in law. That was the logical corollary of the finding on the reference made to the Labour Court.
34. The Court is unable to accept was the plea repeatedly made by Mr. Nanda, that the Labour Court had based its Award principally on the finding that there was a failure by the Management to play subsistence allowance to the Workman. This is based on a selective reading of the impugned Award. On the contrary, a careful perusal of the impugned Award reveals that this is but one of the reasons for the Labour Court to reach its conclusion and not the principal one. The main reason was the failure by the Management to prove the fairness of the domestic enquiry. Despite the numerous opportunities to produce its witness for cross-examination by Page 21 of 23 the Workman, the Management simply refused to do so. Despite its applications in this regard being dismissed by the Labour Court, the Management continued its intransigent attitude. Strangely, the Management accuses the Workman of not availing the opportunity provided in the domestic enquiry, whereas the fact of the matter is that the Management refused to cooperate in the Labour Court proceedings and avail of opportunities of leading evidence to being prove that the domestic enquiry was fair and reasonable. The Court therefore does not find the decision of Dhirajlal Girdharilal (supra) to be of much relevance in the above context. The result of the proceedings in the Labour Court was brought about by the Management itself and it cannot be heard to say the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the domestic enquiry or the dismissal order. None of the other decisions cited by Mr. Nanda in this regard too have any application to the facts of the present case.
35. This case is perhaps symptomatic of how unequal the legal battle is between the workman and the management in a Labour Court. Having been dismissed from service way back in 1988, the workman did not live to see the fruits of his hard- earned victory in the Labour Court, which too came after a long wait of 14 years. For over two decades thereafter, the Management continued to frustrate his attempts at getting his job and his reputation restored. The injustice done to the Page 22 of 23 Workman could not be remedied in his life time. Even today it will be his legal representatives who would perhaps receive the monetary reliefs and that too in further proceedings before the Labour Court. It must be remembered, that the victim of an unfair dismissal is not just the Workman, but his entire family as well. Given that this case has lasted well over three decades, more than one generation has had to bear the cross.
36. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court dismisses the petition and vacates the stay. As had been clarified earlier in this judgment, the further proceedings in the Labour Court will begin by substitution of the deceased Workman by his legal representatives.
37. An urgent certified copy of this judgment be issued as per the Rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (B.P. Routray) Judge KC Bisoi Page 23 of 23