W.P.(C) No.2745 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No.2745 of 2022 Debaraj Malla …. Petitioner -versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court &Another …. Opp. Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - Mr. Swoyam Prabhu Jena, Advocate For Opp. Parties - Mr. S. K. Jee, Add. Govt. Advocate [O.P. No.1] --- CORAM : MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 11.02.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the award dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.08 of 2019, whereby the learned Labour Court, upon assessing the evidence adduced by the W.P.(C) No.2745 of 2022 respective parties examined the action of the Opposite Parties- Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 10.12.2018 by way of refusal of employment and came to hold as follows: “In such view of the matter, the explanation and the plea submitted by the second party workman for resumption to his duty cannot be held to be sufficient for his absence from duty in the instant case. Rather such tactics on the part of the second party workman to join his duty lead to the conclusion that he remained absent from his duty willfully and as such there is nothing wrong on the part of the management to construe his absence from duty as cessation of employment/voluntary abandonment of service. There is no termination of services of the workman by the management; rather, the workman has abandoned his services under the management as he did not join his duty in spite of repeated communications made to him… So, in view of my findings that there was no termination of the second party by the first party management and the second party is not entitled for any relief. These issues are answered accordingly against the workman and consequently the application is disposed of.” 2. The factual backdrop leading to the dispute is that the Petitioner was engaged as an Executive Logistic on 04.08.2016 and continued in service till 09.01.2019. The establishment of the Opposite Parties-Management was shifted to a new location about 1.5 kilometres away from the earlier premises and all staff and officers were directed to report at the new place of functioning of the hospital. While all other employees numbering about 278 reported at the new place, the Petitioner alone remained absent and did not communicate with the Management regarding his absence W.P.(C) No.2745 of 2022 from 22.11.2018 to 09.12.2018. Despite repeated communications issued by the Management through e-mail and post at his known address directing him to resume duty, the Petitioner did not report for work, leading the Management to conclude that he had voluntarily abandoned his service. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the stage of admission argued that the impugned award of the learned P.O., Labour Court is illegal and perverse. 4. A perusal of the impugned award clearly reflects that the stand of the Opposite Party-Management was that there was no termination of the Petitioner’s service, rather cessation of employment on account of voluntary abandonment of duty by him. A feeble attempt was made by learned counsel for the Petitioner to contend that the action of the Management amounted to retrenchment and that non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing retrenchment rendered the action illegal. However, such contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the learned P.O., Labour Court has recorded its findings upon due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and upon proper application of the relevant legal principles. 5. It is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as a court of appeal or as a court of error. Re-appreciation or re- W.P.(C) No.2745 of 2022 evaluation of evidence on facts is impermissible. The supervisory power is intended only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority. In the absence of any grave procedural irregularity or patent error apparent on the face of the record, this Court would not be justified in reassessing the evidence or substituting its own view for that of the Tribunal on findings of fact based on evidence. The matter does not involve deeper consideration. We, therefore, do not incline to indulge ourselves in this application. The application being devoid of merit stands, accordingly dismissed. Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer