CUTTACK, India, June 13 -- Orissa High Court issued the following Judgement on May 12:
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner-Management in this writ petition seeks to assail the Order dated 7th December, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.26 of 2020, thereby allowing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') filed by the Workman-Opposite Party and directing the Petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.2,62,980/- towards Un-utilized Leave Salary (ULS) to the Workman. It is also directed that in the event the Petitioner-Management fails to pay the aforesaid entitlement to the Workman within two months of the said order it would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC)-Management submits that the Opposite Party-Workman was working as Deputy Sub-divisional Manager under the Management and retired from service on 31st May, 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. Opposite Party-Workman claiming that he was not paid his DA at the rate of 13/16%, arrear RACP so also the ULS, filed an application (ID Misc. Case No.27 of 2020) under Section 33-C (2) of the Act before learned Labour Court after seven years from the date of his superannuation. During pendency of ID Misc. Case No.26 of 2020, Petitioner-Management paid his DA and arrear RACP. Thus, learned Labour Court directed for payment of ULS to the Opposite Party-Workman.
3.1 Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel further submits that on the date of superannuation, the retiral benefits, including ULS, should be paid to the employee subject to submission of No Due Certificate (NDC). Although gratuity amount was paid to the Workman, but in view of the observation in the Special Audit Report to the effect that the dues recoverable from the Opposite Party- Workman was much more than his retiral dues, his ULS of Rs.2,62,980/- was withheld. Learned Labour Court, relying upon the case law in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, OSFC and others; 1999 SCC (L&S) 804, directed the PetitionerManagement to pay the aforesaid ULS. The ratio in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) is not applicable to the instant case, as in the said case, in absence of any provision in the Regulations, Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against said Mr. Jena, the ex-employe of OSFC, after the date of his superannuation. But in the instant case, no such disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Opposite Party-Workman. The retiral benefit of ULS could have been released in favour of the Opposite Party on production of NDC, which the Workman failed to comply. Thus, there is no illegality in withholding the ULS of the Workman. This material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Labour Court while adjudicating the matter.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpGPJmaXoHvVqYBnDqZfAfl9ny7NHRxAQ8o4zFwrwkRBr&caseno=WP(C)/3974/2023&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010101972023&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
