The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 13:11:27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMAPL No. 370 OF 2017 Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Ganjam …. Petitioner Ms. Baijayanti Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dash, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Shakti Datta Tripathy, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.3) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.11.2024 7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Perused the kind minutes of Hon’ble the Chief Justice at Flag-C assigning the CMAPL to be heard by this Bench. 3. On perusal of the record, it appears that Misc. Case No.210 of 2017 was filed for condonation of delay of 208 days in filing the CMAPL. Considering the averments made in the CMAPL as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 23rd August, 2024 allowed the Misc. Case for condonation of delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 13:11:27 4. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the cost, as directed, has already been paid and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 agrees to such submission. 5. In that view of the matter, the CMAPL is taken up on merit. 6. This CMAPL has been filed for recalling the order dated 14th December, 2016 and restore OJC No.16617 of 2001 to file. 7. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that OJC No.16617 of 2001 was filed assailing the award dated 6th October, 2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.80 of 1994. The writ petition was listed under the heading “Old Matters” on 14th December, 2016, on which date considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he does not have any instruction in the matter, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is submitted that although learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Bank issued a registered letter dated 6th April, 2016, but due to communication gap, no instruction could be imparted to learned counsel for the Petitioner to pursue the writ petition before this Court. There is substantial question to be decided in the writ petition, for which notice was issued vide order dated 20th December, 2001 and interim stay of the operation of the award was also granted subject to condition Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 13:11:27 that in case the Petitioner fails in the writ petition, then the remuneration found payable to the cadre of Secretary shall be paid along with interest @ 10% per annum. 8. Similar matter has already been adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore Pandey – v- State of U.P. and others: AIR 2009 SC 1640. Hence, there is every likelihood of success for the Petitioner-Bank in the writ petition. Since delay of 208 days has already been condoned finding a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner-Bank, the CMAPL should be restored and the matter should be heard on merit. 9. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 vehemently objects to the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had knowledge all throughout about the proceedings of the writ petition as would appear from the averments made in the CMAPL. As admitted, in spite of receipt of letter from its Advocate, the Petitioner-Bank did not respond and allowed the writ petition to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 14th December, 2016. The conduct of the Petitioner is nothing, but to harass the employees of Opposite Party No.3 and to drag on the litigation preventing them from enjoying the fruit of the award. There is no plausible cause much less any sufficient cause provided in the CMAPL for restoration of the writ petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition with cost. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 13:11:27 10. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that learned Advocate for the Petitioner-Bank on 6th April, 2016 issued a registered letter to the Petitioner-Bank to impart instruction to pursue the writ petition. It is submitted that due to communication gap, the same could not be complied with. The matter was then listed on 14th December, 2016, on which date learned counsel for the Petitioner made a statement that he had no instruction in the matter. From the record, it appears that finding a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner, notices were issued vide order dated 20th December, 2001 and a conditional interim order of stay of operation of award was also granted. It is also submitted that similar matter has been decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 11. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, as delay of 208 days in filing the CMAPL has already been condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 and there is material on record to show that due to a communication gap, learned counsel for the Petitioner made a statement before the Court that he had no instruction in the matter, when it was listed, i.e., on 14th December, 2016. 12. However, the Opposite Party No.3 should be duly compensated for the prejudice caused to it in restoring the writ petition. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 13:11:27 13. Hence, the CMAPL is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of fifteen days hence. 14. The CMAPL is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 5 of 5