National Aluminium Company vs Regional Labour Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 3887 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

              W.P.(C) No. 18104 of 2021

In the matter of applications under Articles 226 7 227 of
the Constitution of India.

                       -----------

National Aluminium Company Limited ..... Petitioner

Versus Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and others ..... Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Ms. Babita Sahu, CGC for OPs.1 & 2 Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate for OP No.3

AND

W.P.(C) No. 13427 of 2021 M/s. Executive Security Services Pvt Ltd. ..... Petitioner

versus

Govt. of India and others ..... Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, Central Govt. Counsel Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI For Opposite Party No.1

Mr. T. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party No.5

-----------

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing: 19.04.2023 Date of judgment: 19.04.2023

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biswanath Rath, J These two writ applications; one by contractor while involving the impugned order at Annexure-8 on the ground of the authority lacks jurisdiction to undertake such exercise, Second writ petition at the instance of the employer thereby also involving the same award but at Annexure-3 therein also on the ground of lack of competency.

2. There is a conjoint argument by both the learned counsel appearing that in spite of bringing jurisdictional aspect to the notice of the competent authority, competent authority being a Central Agency did not take decision on the jurisdictional aspect and illegally proceed to decide on merit involved therein thereby without having a jurisdiction. Both the learned counsel also relies on the decision of this court vide Annexure-3 page-47 of the Ist brief drawing the attention of the Court submission has been made that in the similar situation this Court has already come to hold in the given situation State will be appropriate authority and not the Central Government.

Keeping the position involved here settled through W.P.(C) Nos. 3425 & 3426 of 2002, this Court finds substance in the submission of both the counsel. In the circumstances, this Court interfering with the order at Annexure-8 as well as Annexure-3 in the respective writ petitions set aside both the impugned orders. While allowing the writ petition, this Court simply observe though there is taking away of the impugned orders on technical reasons, there shall be no bar if the party aggrieved raises a dispute before the competent authority for its lawful decision.

The writ petitions thus stand disposed of.

...........................

                                                     (Biswanath Rath)
                                                           Judge
M.S.Sahoo, J.      I agree.

........................... (M.S.Sahoo) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th April, 2023/dutta