The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4354 of 2015 Chand Ali Khan …. Petitioner Mr. Biren Sankar Tripathy, Advocate -versus- The State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Patnaik, Advocate for O.P. No.2 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 29.01.2024 Order No. 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner; Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. S. Patnaik, learned counsel, appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships may be pleased to consider the facts stated above admit the writ application, call for the // 2 // records and after hearing the parties the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Chief General Manager of IDCO may kindly be quashed and the opposite parties may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner against the post of pump helper from the date of his initial engagement as NMR with effect from September 1988 and to give all the consequential financial and service benefits as admissible and due from the date of his regularization within a stipulated time. Any other order/orders may kindly be passed as this Hon’ble court would deem just and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, referring to the judgment of this Court in The Management of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another (W.P.(C) Nos.3121 of 2005 and another matter bearing W.P.(C) No.6510 of 2005, decided on 16.11.2010, submitted that this court had disposed of the said writ petitions with an observation that that the workman who was out of service from 1993 and has been directed to be reinstated in the year 2004 by the impugned award, should be entitled to a higher amount of compensation than what has been granted in the impugned award. Further, while affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, the coordinate Bench has further directed that a lump sum compensation of 25% of the back wages for the period for which the workman was out of employment should be paid to such workman. Mr. Tripathy further contended that the judgment of this Court has been given // 3 // effect to by the Opposite Parties vide order under Anexure-4 to the writ petition. He further contended that after the order of this Court was complied with, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation with a prayer for regularization of his service by filing a representation on 11.12.2012 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Such representation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation vide order dated 23.02.2015 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. While assailing the impugned rejection order, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation is a non-speaking and cryptic order. He further contended that the Opposite Parties while considering the representation of the Petitioner should have given specific grounds for rejection of said representation. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party no.2, at the outset, submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court which was confirmed by this Court in the writ petition has already been effect to and the Petitioners have been extended such benefits accruing out of such orders as NMRs. With regard to the representation filed by the Petitioner for regularization of his service, Mr. Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the same was duly considered by the Opposite // 4 // Parties and since the Opposite Parties do not find any merit in such representation, the case of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 23.02.2015 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation submitted that the case of the Petitioner has been duly considered. Therefore, the impugned rejection order under Annexure-6 to the writ petition does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- Corporation and on careful examination of the pleadings of the parties and materials on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the impugned rejection order dated 23.02.2015 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition is in fact is a non-speaking order. This Court is also of the considered view that the Opposite Parties while rejecting the representation of the Petitioner should have given specific grounds on which the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected. However, such ground was found in the impugned rejection order. It is needless to mention here that while considering an application, the Opposite Parties are required to assign reason, particularly when they are rejecting the representation of the Petitioner, such reason is found to be absent in the impugned rejection order, the same calls for // 5 // interference by this Court. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of matter, this Court deems it proper to set aside the impugned rejection order dated 23.02.2015 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2-Corporation to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law with liberty to the Petitioner to raise any other grounds along with a certified copy of this order before the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of two months from today. In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2 along with a certified copy of this order, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same strictly in accordance with law and dispose of the application of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 03-Feb-2024 11:08:29