Calcutta Dock Labour Board And vs Kasi Behera @ Bera And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11132 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.A. No.111 of 2019

            Calcutta Dock Labour Board and        ....             Appellants
            others
                                                Mr. Sanjib Swain, Advocate
                                     -versus-
            Kasi Behera @ Bera and another        ....           Respondents
                                                                     None
                     CORAM:
                     THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                                    ORDER

30.10.2021 Order No.

02. 1. The present appeal by the Calcutta Dock Labour Board and its Officers is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21st December 2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17280 of 2010 whereby a direction was issued to release the pensionary arrears and other retirement benefits in favour of the Respondent No.1 i.e. the writ Petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum till the same is paid to him. A specific direction was issued to the present Appellants to compute such benefits and pay the Respondent No.1 requisite amount within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment.

2. At the outset, Mr. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants candidly states that till date i.e. nearly three years after the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, despite there being no stay of the impugned judgment, the Appellants have not implemented it.

// 2 //

3. Respondent No.1 is shown in the cause title to be 79 years old at the time of filing of the present appeal and he would be 81 years old now. Respondent No.1 does not appear to have filed any contempt petition. No attempt was made by the present Appellant to have the present appeal listed even once since the date of its filing i.e. 11th March, 2019. Also they have taken it upon themselves not to implement the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge despite there being no stay.

4. Considering that Respondent No.1 is a pensioner and now 81 years old and given the attitude of the present Appellants, the Court considers it not to be in the interests of justice to interefer in the matter at this stage.

5. Consequently leaving all the questions of law that might arise from the impugned judgment open for the decision in another appropriate case, the Court declines to interfere.

6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observation.

7. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( B.P. Routray ) Judge S.K. Guin