Deputy Director (Revenue) vs Orissa Rural Housing And
2022 Latest Caselaw 6955 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No. 429 of 2019



             Deputy      Director          (Revenue), ....               Appellant
             Employees'      State          Insurance
             Corporation
                                                Mr. Amar Prasad Ray, Advocate
                                           -versus-
             Orissa   Rural     Housing           and
             Development Corporation Ltd.               ....           Respondent
                                                                          None

             CORAM:
             THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                          ORDER

Order No. 29.11.2022

02. 1. The present appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation is directed against a judgment dated 20th August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.18183 of 2008 filed by the Respondent-Company, which was a State owned corporation, with a direction to the present Appellant to decide the issue raised in the reply filed by the Respondent to the show cause notice issued to it by the present Appellant and decide as a preliminary issue, the question of applicability of the ESI Act to the Respondent- Corporation. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has required the present Appellant to pass a reasoned and speaking order affording opportunity of hearing and to decide as expeditiously as possible "preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment".

2. More than three years have elapsed since the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Although the present appeal was filed on 19th September, 2019 till date it has not even been listed for hearing. In the last 2 years, no mention was made of the present appeal for listing. It has been listed in its usual turn today.

3. When a specific query was posed to learned counsel for the Appellant whether the impugned directions of the learned Single Judge, which has not been stayed till date, has been implemented, he answered in the negative.

4. Considering that all that has been done in the impugned judgment is a mere remand to the Appellant to decide the preliminary issue regarding applicability of the ESI Act to the Respondent, the Court sees no prejudice having been caused to the Appellant on that score.

5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order calls for no interference. The writ appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy.