IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 28946 of 2019 Ramesh Mishal …. Petitioner Mr. Bibhu Prasad Panda, Advocate -versus- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 4) Mr. Somanath Mishra, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 05.02.2025 4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 3rd February, 2016 (Annexure-9) passed by learned Labour Court, Jeypore in ID Case No.11 of 2015. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, while working as Treasurer under Opposite Party No.2-Management, was suspended without framing any charge. But inadvertently an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) was filed before learned Labour Court, Jeypore. Learned Labour Court framed the following issues for adjudication. “Schedule (i) Whether the action of the President, East Central India Union of SDA, Chapal Road, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri Ramesh Mishal w.e.f. 1.4.2014 is legal and/or justified? (ii) Whether the case filed by the Workman Ramesh Mishal u/S 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court at present or not? (iii) If not what relief Sri Ramesh Mishal is entitled to?” Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2025 17:56:44 Signature Not Verified While adjudicating issue No.(iii), learned Labour Court categorically held as under:- “18. As it appears that, the workman claimed for reinstatement with service benefits and wages. It is admitted fact that, the Second party-Workman was placed under suspension w.e.f. September 9, 2013, by the 1st party- management. As already discussed, the second party-workman was not terminated from service, rather his job is on hold. It is further noticed that, the workman filed this case U/s 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act, without complying the provision of the said Section and as such, the workman is not entitled for reinstatement with service benefits and wages from the Management. Hence this issue is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, the Schedule of reference is answered on contest against the Second party Workman without costs. Accordingly, the actions of the President, East Central India Union of SDA, Chapal Road, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri Ramesh Mishal w.e.f. 1.4.2014 is held legal and justified. In view of the above, the Second party-Workman is not entitled to get any relief from the Management.” From the above, it is apparent that, while parting with the award, learned Labour Court erroneously held that the action of the Management-Opposite Party No.2 in terminating the services of the Petitioner is legal and justified. Accordingly, it is held that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the Management. 4. It is further submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that action of the Management in suspending the Petitioner was in question. Thus, an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act was not maintainable as rightly held by learned Labour Court at para-18 of the impugned award (quoted supra). Thus, the observation of learned Labour Court to the effect that the action of the Management-Opposite Party No.2 in terminating the Petitioner from service is legal and justified being not sustainable, is liable to be set aside. Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2025 17:56:44 Signature Not Verified 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3-Management submits that the application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act was misconceived, as there was no termination of the Petitioner from service. He was only suspended for alleged misappropriation of the funds of the Management. Hence, learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. 6. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Management -Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 placed reliance on the evidence of the Management Witness (MW-1) that “….. since there is no termination order was issued by the second party till date and the question of reinstatement with back wages does not arise……” He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Petitioner was never terminated from service. As such, an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act is not maintainable, as rightly held by learned Labour Court at para-18 of the impugned award (quoted supra). As such, the observation made in the concluding paragraph of the impugned award to the effect that action of the Management in terminating services of the Petitioner is legal and justified is not sustainable being misconceived. The said observation /finding in the impugned award is accordingly set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy (S.K.Mishra) Judge