Satyendra Narayan Chand vs M/S. Neelachal Ispat Nigam
2023 Latest Caselaw 9183 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9183 Ori
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2023

Orissa High Court

Satyendra Narayan Chand vs M/S. Neelachal Ispat Nigam on 14 August, 2023

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                         W.A. No.838 of 2023

            Satyendra Narayan Chand        ....                   Appellant
                                     Mr. Subrat Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            M/s. Neelachal Ispat Nigam ....                     Respondent
            Limited (NINL), Jajpur
                          Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1

                       CORAM:
                       THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                           ORDER

14.08.2023 Order No. I. A. No.2352 of 2023

07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 35 days in

filing the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Subrat Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the -

Applicant-Appellant and Mr. Aditya Mishra, learned counsel for the

Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (Respondents No.1 and 2).

4. For the causes assigned therein, the application is allowed.

Consequently, the delay is condoned.

W.A. No.838 of 2023

5. Heard Mr. Subrat Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the

Appellant and Mr. Aditya Mishra, learned counsel for the

Respondents No.1 and 2.

6. By means of this writ appeal the observation made as regards the

liberty granted for further legal action in the order dated 17th

February, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in RVWPET

No.233 of 2017 has been challenged.

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has

submitted that except the following observation, the Appellant does

not have any other grievance so far as the impugned order is

concerned:

"However, if the review petitioner is, so advised, he may assail the order passed by the controlling authority in an independent proceeding lodged at their instances."

8. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty that an order was passed in favour of

the Appellant by the Controlling Authority (CA). Against the said

order the review petition was filed before the CA by the Employer-

Respondents No.1 and 2. The said review petition was dismissed

after consideration. Against the said order of dismissal, the

Employer filed a separate writ petition being W.P.(C) No.20266 of

2017. That writ petition was ultimately withdrawn after the

aforementioned order dated 17th February, 2023 was passed by

providing liberty, as noted before. The Employee (the Appellant

herein) had also filed a separate writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.18066 of 2017 seeking expeditious implementation of the order

of the CA. That petition was allowed vide order dated 4th

September, 2017. Against the said order dated 4th September 2017,

the Employer (the Respondent No.1 herein) filed a review petition

being RVWPET No.233 of 2017, which was dismissed with the

above observation by the order dated 17th February, 2023. Only on

a very limited ground, as noted above, this appeal has been filed.

According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant, the said observation is wholly unwarranted in the

circumstances of the case. He has urged this Court to expunge or

recall the above noted observation by taking away all its

consequences as occurred in the meanwhile.

9. Mr. Aditya Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Employer-

Respondents No.1 and 2 has brought to our notice to the order dated

11th April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in I. A. No.103

of 2023 arising from RVWPET No.233 of 2017. The said

Interlocutory Application was filed by the Appellant seeking

modification of the impugned judgment dated 17th February 2023,

but the learned Single Judge having referred to the observation as

reproduced above held that "this Court is not inclined to interfere

with the judgment dated 17th February, 2023. However, it is made

clear that it is open for the Opposite Parties (Appellant herein) to

raise all the grounds including the ground of limitation before the

appellate authority and in the event such grounds are raised, this

Court is confident that such grounds shall be considered by the

appellate authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the

Petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein). Further, it is made clear that

considering the fact that the matter is lingering since long, the

appellate authority is further directed to make every endeavour to

conclude the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a

period of two months from the date of production of certified copy

of this order."

10. The said order dated 11th April, 2023 has also been challenged

in the statutory appeal (not under this appeal). Mr. Mishra has

submitted that being aggrieved by the said observation, the appeal

has been filed by the Employer, which is pending before the

appellate authority and in the said proceeding, the Appellant has

appeared and participated by filing objection regarding the

maintainability of the said appeal.

11. Be that as it may, the sole question that falls for consideration is

that if the aggrieved person is entitled to the remedy of appeal, can

that be taken away by the Court while deciding the right of filing

the appeal specifically when the grievance as projected is that the

relief granted by the CA is not being implemented?

12. Even if the review petition is dismissed, the appellate authority

can consider that whether the appeal is maintainable or not. The

Court cannot take away the right to file appeal when there is no

dispute that the CA does not have any reviewing power.

13. Having observed thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal

and we direct that observation made in I. A. No.103 of 2023, since

has not been challenged, shall be taken care of by the appellate

authority.