The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) Nos.1980, 1981, 1982 & 1983 of 2018 WPC (OAC) No.1980 of 2018 Satrughan Jena …. Petitioner Ms. M. Panda, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 04.07.2023 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Ms. M. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners inter alia with the following prayer:- “i) Order directing the respondents to produce all the relevant record along with returns. ii) Order directing the Respondents to modify the order dated 14.07.2016 and to consider the case of the Applicant for regularization of his service from the date of the Juniors have been regularized and extend the service benefits as admissible under law. Order directing iii) the representation filed by the Applicant on dated 08.05.2018 (vide Annexure-5) within a stipulated period. to consider respondents the // 2 // iv) And pass such other order/orders, direction /directions as deem fit and proper. v) Order allowing the Applicant with costs”. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners were all engaged as NMRs in the establishment of Opposite Party No.5 prior to 12.04.1993. But while so continuing when they were disengaged from their work, the matter was carried before the Labour Machineries and ultimately learned Labour Court, BBSR in I.D. Case No.211/1998 passed the award on dated 05.09.2002. Relevant portion of the award is quoted hereunder:- “ I have gone through the entire evidence on record including the exhibits. Admittedly the workmen have worked for more than two years and the management has not proved that the workmen have not completed 240 days of work in 12 calendar months preceding refusal of employment. Admittedly the retrenchment compensation has not been paid to the workmen before refusing employment to them. Therefore, the action of the management is bound to be considered as illegal and unjustified”. the date of 4.1. It is contented that on the face of such award passed by the learned Labour Court, the Opposite Parties instead of implementing the award, challenged the same before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1986 of 2003. This Court after due hearing of the matter disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 18.02.2005. The direction of this Court so contained in Paras-10 & 11 of the order are quoted hereunder:- “10. In view of the aforesaid analysis I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award setting aside the order of retrenchment and directing reinstatement of the workmen. But then it appears that the workmen have not adduced any Page 2 of 6 // 3 // evidence that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere after their retrenchment. The workmen are young persons. In the absence of any materials to indicate that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere and in absence of any finding by the Labour Court in that regard direction to pay 50% back wages is not just, proper and legal. I have therefore no hesitation to quash the finding with regard to payment of 50% back wages while confirming the direction for reinstatement of the workmen in service and order accordingly. issued by this Court on 22.10.2003 11. In course of hearing, it appears that in consonance with the direction the management has deposited a sum of Rs.2,52,180/- before this Court towards compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and back wages and same has been invested in a Fixed Deposit. The said amount be disbursed in favour of opposite party-workmen. The Management is also directed to calculate the total entitlement of the workmen and pay an extra amount that may be necessary in the light of the observations made above or in the alternative recover any amount if it is found that the same has been paid in excess”. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that on the face the order passed by this Court on 18.02.2005, Opposite Parties never reinstated the Petitioners and the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6725/2009. Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.01.2015 dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by this Court on dated 18.02.2005. Only after dismissal of the appeal by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Petitioners were reinstated in their work vide office order dated 14.07.2016 under Annexure-4. 4.3. It is contented that the Petitioners even though were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and their disengagement was found illegal by the learned Labour Court while passing the award vide award dated 05.09.2002, but the Petitioners were reengaged only vide office order dated 14.07.2016 under Annexure-4. But in Page 3 of 6 // 4 // the meantime persons similarly situated and juniors to the Petitioners so engaged as NMRs, were brought over to the wages establishment vide office order dated 19.06.2001 under Annexure-9. 4.4. It is contended that even though similarly situated NMR Khalasi were brought over to the wages establishment vide order dated 19.06.2001, but after reinstatement vide order dated 14.07.2016 similar benefit was never extended in favour of the Petitioners by bringing them over to the wages establishment. Accordingly, the present writ petitions were filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 4.5. Ms. Panda vehemently contended that since similarly situated NMRs and juniors to the Petitioners were brought over to the wages establishment vide office order dated 19.06.2001, Petitioners being similarly situated and better placed are also entitled to get similar benefit and eligible to be brought over to the wages establishment from the date such NMRs were brought over vide order under Annexure-9. Ms. Panda accordingly prayed that necessary direction be issued to the Opposite Parties to bring over the Petitioners to the wages department from the date similarly situated NMRs were so brought over vide office order dated 19.06.2001 Annexure-9 with also service and financial benefits. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand while does not dispute the stand taken by the Petitioners regarding reinstatement in terms of the order passed by the Labour Court so modified by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court but contended that the Petitioners claiming the benefit of office order dated 19.06.2001 have never approached the authority. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioners be permitted to move appropriate application before Opposite Party No.1 for taking a decision on the claim of the Petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties, this Court while disposing the writ petition directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of the order dated 19.06.2001 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. While considering the claim of the Petitioners, Opposite Party No.1 shall verify as to whether NMRs brought over to the wages establishment vide order dated 19.06.2001 under Annexure-9 were engaged along with and/or subsequent to the Petitioners and if on such enquiry, it is found that the benefit extended in favour of the NMRs vide order dated 19.06.2001 under Annexure-9 are engaged subsequent to the Petitioners, appropriate order will be passed by Opposite Party No.1 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 8. Photocopy of this order be placed in other connected cases. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: .. Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Jul-2023 15:42:45 Page 6 of 6