Orissa High Court: Permanent Committee Cannot Defer Advocate’s Name After Interaction Stage; Directs Fresh Application for Senior Advocate Designation

Court’s Decision
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement but enhanced the compensation awarded by the Industrial Tribunal from ₹3,00,000 to ₹6,00,000. The compensation must be paid within four weeks, failing which it will accrue interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition’s presentation on September 8, 2021.

Facts
The petitioner had served for over nine years with the Society for Prevention of Animal Diseases (SPAD) before being terminated in 2019. She challenged the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated April 16, 2021, which denied reinstatement and awarded ₹3,00,000 in compensation. The petitioner argued that she was not a contractual employee but a regular employee and that her disengagement was illegal. The government had previously permitted SPAD to enhance and regularize employees based on its by-laws.

Issues
The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with back wages or whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced due to the alleged wrongful termination.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that she had already rendered over ten years of service and that her termination was illegal. She contended that she was a regular Grade-III employee and that her disengagement was only in respect to monthly remuneration. The petitioner also stated that others were engaged after her termination, purportedly through contractors, and claimed that she was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents opposed the petitioner’s claims, arguing that there was no sanctioned post at the time of her appointment, and that the requirement for her services had ceased. The respondents also maintained that those who were regularized did so in other establishments, and that the petitioner was never appointed or engaged by the relevant authorities.

Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the petitioner’s claim in light of the evidence, including her affidavit and cross-examination in the Tribunal. The Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal had erroneously relied on what it believed to be a “candid admission” by the petitioner, which she had never made. Based on this, the Court found that the Tribunal’s denial of reinstatement was based on an incorrect finding.

Precedent Analysis
The petitioner relied on two judgments from the Supreme Court:

B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal (2014): The Court considered the facts that the petitioner had worked for over ten years continuously and found that the termination was illegal, similar to the case at hand.
Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, PWD (2021): In this case, the Supreme Court enhanced compensation from ₹25,000 to ₹3.25 lakhs when reinstatement was not possible. The petitioner sought enhancement of compensation to ₹30,00,000 if reinstatement was not ordered.

Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in construing the petitioner’s statements as admissions of her being a contractual employee. It was clear that the petitioner had never made such an admission. As such, the denial of reinstatement was unjustified. However, the Court also noted that reinstatement was not warranted and instead opted to enhance the compensation to ₹6,00,000 in light of the petitioner’s long service and the circumstances surrounding her termination.

Conclusion
The Court enhanced the compensation to ₹6,00,000 to be paid within four weeks, with interest accruing at 6% per annum if the payment was delayed beyond the specified period. The petition for reinstatement was dismissed.