Orissa High Court
Paradip Port Trust vs Central Government Industrial .... ... on 23 July, 2024
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2016 of 2022
Paradip Port Trust .... Petitioner
-versus-
Central Government Industrial .... Opposite Parties
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar and another
Learned advocates appeared in the case:
For petitioner : Mr. S.K. Padhi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A.P. Das, Advocate
For opposite parties : Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. D. Mohant, Advocate
(for opposite party no.2)
Mr. P.P. Behera, CGC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of hearing : 2nd July, 2024 and 23rd July, 2024
Date of judgment : 23rd July, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Padhi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (Paradip Port Trust) in WP(C) no.2016 of 2022. His client Page 1 of 5 was first party management named in award dated 17th December, 2020, under challenge.
2. On 2nd July, 2024 he had submitted, it cannot be disputed that the workers were engaged by the Management Committee. Said Committee was not a party in the reference. The Management Committee constituted of representatives from the workmen, their employer (clearing and forwarding agency) and one full time officer from his client to act as Chairman of the committee. Further assistance to the committee was rendered by his client on deputing another officer to act as Secretary to the committee. He submits, the Management Committee in its wisdom decided non-payment of variable dearness allowance (VDA) to workers engaged to work in the port area, in respect of clearing and forwarding cargo handled, so as to attract more business. The workers were never engaged by his client. In the circumstances, there could not have been made direction upon his client to take steps for making payment of the dues, purportedly arisen in the period when the VDA stood frozen.
3. On 2nd July, 2024 Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the union had submitted, the Management Committee came to be formed under Paradip Port Clearing, Forwarding and Handling Workers (Regulation of Employment) WP(C) no. 2016 of 2022 Page 2 of 5 Scheme, 1994. On query made he had submitted, members of his client were engaged by the Management Committee.
4. Today Mr. Mohanty draws attention to order dated 13th June, 2014 of reference made by the Central Government. He relies on first recital and the schedule. The recital is reproduced below.
"WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Paradip Port Trust, PO: Paradip, Dist: and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;"
(emphasis supplied) He then demonstrates from statement of claim filed by his client that both Paradip Port Trust and the Management Committee were named collectively as first party management.
5. He submits, in impugned award first party management was described only as Paradip Port Trust. There was omission to mention the Management Committee also as included in first party management. He submits on instruction, members of his client were engaged by the Management Committee. According to him, his client is not responsible for the omission, where the Management Committee was included as first party management in the statement of claim filed by it. Hence, there cannot be urged confusion in WP(C) no. 2016 of 2022 Page 3 of 5 description of first party management and the direction made against it. Having said that and in view of our query made by paragraph-3 of said order dated 2nd July, 2024 reproduced above he in fairness submits, the reference be restored to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal(CGIT)-cum-Labour Court.
6. Mr. Padhi in reply submits, the omission is in line with the order of the reference because said order recited opinion of the Central Government that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Paradip Port Trust and their workmen. As such, the direction was made upon his client though there was no employer employee relationship between it and members of the union.
7. We are satisfied that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-(CGIT)-cum-Labour Court suffered confusion to consequently make directions upon petitioner. Schedule of the reference mentions the Management Committee. We are given to understand the Management Committee also separately filed written statement and participated in the reference. As such, the award is required to be and is set aside. The reference is restored to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court for expeditious disposal without granting unnecessary adjournments. WP(C) no. 2016 of 2022 Page 4 of 5
8. We make it clear we have set aside the award because of erroneous direction made upon petitioner (Paradip Port Trust), who admittedly, is not the employer of members of the union. We further make it clear we have not said anything about finding of the Tribunal that non-payment/withholding of disbursement of VDA in between 1st November, 2000 to 31st December, 2011 is not legal and justified and it was an act on the part of the Management Committee. Also we note that the Management Committee is not a party in this writ petition.
9. The writ petition is disposed of. The Tribunal records be returned forthwith.
1. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 24-Jul-2024 13:24:29 WP(C) no. 2016 of 2022 Page 5 of 5