Orissa High Court
The Management Of M/S. Nava Bharat vs State Of Odisha And Others on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 411 of 2019
The Management of M/s. Nava Bharat .... Petitioner
Ventures Ltd.
Mr. Shibashish Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.P. Das, A.S.C. for State
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate for OP No.3
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 13.04.2023
04. 1. This review petition by The Management of M/s. Nava Bharat
Ventures Limited (hereafter the 'Management') seeks the recall and
review of the judgment dated 20th September, 2019 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court dismissing the writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.5671 of 2019 filed by the Management challenging an
award dated 26th July, 2018 of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in
I.D. Case No.4 of 2017.
2. The brief facts for the purposes of the present review petition are
that Opposite Party No.3 was initially appointed in the Petitioner-
Company as a Diploma Engineer Trainee (Electrical) for a period
of two years and, on completion of the training, was placed in the
post of Supervisor (Operation). Due to the changed market
scenario, the Management decided to end his services along with
four other Engineers and on 19th June, 2015 Opposite Party No.3
was requested to take his full and final settlement. A tripartite
settlement had in the meanwhile been entered into by the
Management with the representatives of its Workmen on 30th
October, 2012. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 raised an industrial
dispute and a reference was made on 18th January, 2017 to the
Labour Court whether the termination of his services was justified?
3. One of the issues raised in the Labour Court by the Management
was whether Opposite Party No.3 was a 'Workman' within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID
Act). This question was answered in favour of the Workman and
against the Management in the impugned award dated 26th July,
2018. The finding was rendered after discussion of the evidence led
by the parties.
4. Meanwhile, another Engineer identically placed as Opposite
Party No.3, raised a separate industrial dispute which happened to
be referred in I.D. Case No.13 of 2015 to the Industrial Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar. The Industrial Tribunal, on 30th March, 2019
rendered an award accepting the plea of the Management that the
said Engineer was not a Workman within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the I.D. Act.
5. Thus two diametrically opposite awards had been rendered on the
same issue, one by the Labour Court and the other by the Industrial
Tribunal. Consequently, in W.P.(C) No.5671 of 2019 filed by the
Management challenging the award dated 26th July 2018 in this
Court, an additional affidavit was filed by the Management on 8th
September, 2019 enclosing a copy of the award dated 30th March,
2019 of the Industrial Tribunal. The record of W.P.(C) No.5671 of
2019 reflects that such an additional affidavit was indeed filed.
6. However, while passing the order dated 20th September, 2019
dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench did not discuss the
said award dated 30th March, 2019 of the Industrial Tribunal. This
is the only ground on which review is sought. In other words, it is
urged that the Division Bench failed to discuss a document which
was on record in the writ petition which had a material bearing on
the outcome of the case.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Workman in the present case
urges that this does not fall within the scope of a review petition
and seeks to place reliance on the recent judgment dated 18th
August, 2022 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
Nos.5503-04 of 2022 (S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana
Reddy).
8. The above submissions have been considered. The above
decision in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (supra),
recapitulates the settled legal position as regards the scope of a
review petition. Inter alia it was pointed out that in a review
petition, "it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence
and reach a different conclusion even if that is possible". However,
as far as the present case is concerned, the Management is not
asking this Court to re-appreciate the evidence but only pointing out
that an award of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of another
identically placed Engineer reaching a different conclusion on the
preliminary question whether the Engineer falls within the
definition of Workman, under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, was not
discussed by this Court in the order dismissing the writ petition.
9. In the considered view of the Court, the said document did have a
bearing on the outcome of the writ petition and ought to have been
discussed by this Court. This is certainly an error apparent on the
face of the order falling within the purview of a review petition.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court reviews and recalls
the order dated 20th September, 2019 and restores W.P.(C) No.5671
of 2019 to the file of the Court.
11. Pursuant to an interlocutory order passed by this Court on 19th
January, 2023 in this review petition, the Management has
deposited a sum of Rs.20,15,636/- along with a calculation which
has been asked to be kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized
Bank. That amount will continue to remain in a fixed deposit during
the pendency of the writ petition and appropriate orders in that
regard would be passed at the time of disposal of W.P.(C) No.5671
of 2019.
12. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S. Behera
