ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W. P.(C) NO. 8819 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------------- Mr. R. Hanumanta Rao and another …… Petitioners -Versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur and others …… Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. P.K.Mishra & S.K.Dash. For Opp. Parties : M/s. R.N.Acharya, L.Ray & P.K.Mohanty (for O.Ps 2 to 5) ----------------------- Decided on 02.09.2010. ----------------------- P R E S E N T : THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. DAS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.M. DAS, J. The opposite parties 2 to 5 filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur claiming arrear salary and expenses as per the annexures made to the said application separately in respect of each of the said opp. parties. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur registering the same as a Misc. Case No. 18 of 2002 allowed the said application by order dated 13.6.2003 ex parte. The petitioners – management, being aggrieved by the said award, have preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the award has been passed behind the back of the petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing to them and rejecting the application filed by one Shri H.C. Dani to represent the management. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opp. parties 2 to 5 are not entitled to get any amount from the company, but in the alternative, they are to pay back some amount in terms of the agreement entered into between them and the company, as the opp. parties 2 to 4 have resigned and the opp. party no. 5 was terminated from service. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the opp. parties 2 to 5 were engaged by the company to work as agents/sales representatives and they were required to show a targeted sale of Rs. 50,000/- each. On considering the sale made by the opp. party no. 2, he was engaged as Area Sales Manager with a target sale of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, whereas opp. parties 3 to 5 were offered to be engaged as Field Sales Officers with a target sale of Rs. 50,000/- each per month. The terms and conditions of their engagement were as enumerated in Annexures-1 and 1/A to the writ petition. The petitioners have made several allegations against the said opp. parties with regard to misconduct and 2 misappropriation of company funds. It is averred in the writ petition that the opp. parties 2 to 5 suddenly disappeared from their work from the month of January, 2002 and the opp. parties, 2, 3 and 4 submitted their resignations in writing resigning from the work with effect from 6.2.2002. The opp. party no. 5 did not report to work since the month of January, 2002 for which notices were issued to him by the petitioner no. 2 to report at the Zonal Office at Cuttack, but he did not respond to the same. It was further found that he has played fraud on the company by producing fraud T.A. Bills. As he did not report for work, the management by letter dated 23.3.2002 intimated him that his services have been terminated by advising him to return the office property worth Rs. 3,000/- along with the stock he had received of a value of Rs. 13,037/- and to produce no due certificate from all his stockists failing which steps would be taken to recover the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the opp. parties 2 to 5, on the contrary, submitted that the terms and conditions of reengagement as given in Annexures-1 and 1/A were never provided to the said opp. parties, and, rather, while engaging them, the company gave out that the terms and conditions of engagement will be intimated to them, which was never done. He further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour 3 Court gave ample opportunity of hearing to the company, but the company failed to either file a show cause or take part in hearing of the case for which, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court rightly relying upon the application filed by the opp. parties 2 to 5 passed the impugned order. 4. It appears from the case record that after receipt of the application under section 33-C (2) of the Act, notice was issued to the petitioners for filing show cause. The petitioners on entering appearance in the said proceeding, instead of filing a show cause, made an application for interrogation annexing thereto the questions required to be answered by the opp. parties 2 to 5 as per the provisions of Order 11, Rule 4 C.P.C. The said application was not entertained by the labour court as it was not supported by any affidavit and no show cause/counter was filed against the claim of the said opp. parties. The case was adjourned to 27.11.2002 for filing of show cause/counter. On the said date, none appeared for the company/management, but a petition was filed by an Advocate with a prayer to allow him to defend the case on behalf of the employer. Since there was no consent from the side of the workmen, the said application was rejected and the matter was adjourned to 23.12.2002 for filing of show cause/counter. On 23.12.2002, the petitioners did not appear for which they were set ex parte and the matter was 4 posted for ex parte hearing. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed. It is an admitted case of the opp. parties 2 to 5 that the opp. Parties 2 to 4 resigned from service with effect from 6.2.2002 and the opp. party no. 5 was terminated from service with effect from 23.3.2002. However, from the respective claims lodged by the opp. parties 2 to 5, it appears that they have claimed salary beyond the period from which they either resigned or were terminated. This Court, however, makes no comments on the amount claimed on the other heads by the opp. parties – workmen. 5. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court except perusing the appointment orders and stating that there is un-assailed evidence of the opp. parties 2 to 4, he finds that they are entitled to receive their unpaid salary and allowances etc. from the management as per the detailed calculation sheet separately attached to the application and disallowing the claim of interest has allowed the application under section 33 –C (2) of the Act. 6. When it is an admitted case of the workmen that opp. parties 2 to 4 have resigned with effect from 6.2.2000 and the opp. party no. 5 was terminated/discharged from service with effect from 23.3.2002, the impugned order appears to have been passed without due application of judicial mind. No doubt, 5 sufficient cause has not been disclosed by the petitioners for not filing the counter/show cause before the court below or not taking part in the hearing of the case on the date when the matter was fixed for hearing. But, however, as the impugned order appears to be cryptic and not support by reasons, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be remitted back to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur for fresh adjudication. 7. Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur for fresh adjudication and parties are directed to appear before the said Labour Court on 15.09.2010, when the Presiding Officer shall give opportunity to the petitioners to file their show cause and proceed with the matter by allowing the respective parties to adduce evidence both oral and documentary. In case, the petitioners fail to file their show cause, no further opportunity shall be afforded to them and the matter shall be decided on its own merits. The learned Presiding Officer shall pass a reasoned order. The case being of the year 1992, the learned Presiding Officer shall dispose of the matter by the end of March, 2011 strictly in accordance with law. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by the petitioners before this Court and invested in a fixed deposit shall be sent back with accrued interest thereon to 6 the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Samablpur, which shall be kept in deposit by him in a fixed deposit till final disposal of the case and shall abide by the final result of the case. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, but in the circumstances without any cost. …………………… M.M. Das, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. September 2nd, 2010/Biswal. 7