The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 376 of 2024 UCO Bank, represented by the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, near Police Line Chhak, O.T. Road, Balasore-756001 …. Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate Mr. S.K.Swain, Advocate -Versus- Sri Amit Kumar Mohapatra, aged about 39 years, Village- Radhanathpur, P.O. Mandari, Dist-Bhadrak …. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Surendranath Panda, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.07.2024 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. UCO Bank, Balasore through its Zonal Manager has put to challenge an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.39677 of 2023 in the present intra-court appeal. 3. The respondent, in the above mentioned writ petition, had sought for a direction to the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Balasore Zone Office to enhance his wages, at par with initial basic pay with D.A. admissible to regular staff of the Bank from 2020 with subsequent revision, as and when the wage revision takes place. Page 1 of 5 4. It was the respondent’s case as set up in the writ proceedings that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the UCO Bank, Bhadrak Branch on 02.08.2014 and had been getting a sum of Rs.250/- per day. Challenging the low wages paid to the respondent, he had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.39677 of 2023. 5. The writ petition was filed on 04.12.2023. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 on the very first day when it was taken up for admission, with the following positive directions: “8. A similarly placed employee had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7821 of (Sri Satya Narayan Pattnaik v. Zonal 2014 Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, C-2, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar & another). A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2014 disposed of the said writ petition directing the Opposite Party-Bank to pay wages to the daily-wage earners equal to the salary of the lowest paid employees of their cadre in the services of the Bank from the date of filing of the writ petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party-Bank to consider the case of the Petitioner and to grant them wages as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi(3)’s case (supra) as well as the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Satya Narayan Pattnaik’s case. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider the case of Page 2 of 5 the Petitioner and grant such benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.” 6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without any formal notice to the appellant-Bank, though in the presence of learned counsel, who represents the Bank in this Court. He has submitted that the respondent had not filed in the writ petition, even a chit of paper that he was engaged by the Bank on daily-wage basis. Had the Bank been given an opportunity to file an affidavit, relevant facts would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in order to make out a case that the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court relied on by the respondent were not applicable in the facts and circumstances relating to claim of the respondent as raised in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the respondent’s claim was based purely on legal issues and no factual aspect was required to be addressed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he contends, the nature of order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring this Court’s interference in the present intra-court appeal. 8. After having perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the opposite parties, we find substance in the submission made on behalf of Page 3 of 5 the appellant. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge examined the materials as brought on record in the writ petition by the respondent. Learned Single Judge thereafter reached a conclusion that the case of the respondent was identical to an employee, namely, Satya Narayan Pattnaik, who had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.7821 of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated 10.11.2014 and accordingly directed the Bank to pay wages to the respondent equal to the salary of the lowest paid employees of his cadre in the service of the Bank. 9. Since a specific stand has been taken on behalf of the appellant controverting the respondent’s plea in the writ petition that his case was identical to the case of Sri Satya Narayan Pattnaik (supra), we are constrained to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. We are of the considered view that a relief by issuing a positive direction, dealing with the facts should not be granted without giving an opportunity to the other side to admit or controvert the facts, by filing an affidavit. This is for the reason that the writ proceedings are decided based on affidavits and it would be unsafe for the Court exercising power of judicial review to decide the matters based on the factual aspects as disclosed in the writ petition only. For the said reason, the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.39677 of 2023 is set aside. Consequently, the said writ petition stands restored to its original file. The writ appeal is allowed. Page 4 of 5 11. Let the writ petition be placed before the appropriate Bench having the roster. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has undertaken that a counter affidavit shall be filed in the writ petition within three weeks. If such counter affidavit is filed by the appellant upon serving a copy thereof on learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the respondent shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder affidavit thereto. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Judge (Savitri Ratho) SK Jena/Secy. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Jul-2024 12:00:12 Page 5 of 5