Management Of The Principal vs Sri Khirod Kumar Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 7182 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RVWPET No.105 of 2023

             Management of the Principal, Veer         ....                 Petitioner
             Surendrasai Medical College,
             Sambalpur

                                                            Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

                                            -versus-
             Sri Khirod Kumar Sahu                     ....             Opposite Party

                                                             Mr. M. Pati, Advocate
                                                            Mr. S. S. Pati, Advocate
             CORAM:
             JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
             JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA


                                       ORDER

03.07.2023

I.A. no.152 of 2023 and RVWPET No.105 of 2023 Order No.

02. 1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of review

applicant. He submits, the application was made on delay of two days.

A condonation of delay application has also been filed.

2. Mr. Pati, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party

in the writ petition. In fairness he does not oppose the condonation of

delay application.

3. The condonation of delay application is allowed on condoning

the delay. The application is disposed of.

// 2 //

4. Mr. Mishra, submits, review has been sought of judgment

dated 27th February, 2023, by which we dismissed the writ petition. He

submits, the workmen, including opposite party in the writ petition, did

not complete work of 240 days in a year. The hostel superintendent had

produced the muster roll in evidence, not considered by the Labour

Court. This fact was not brought notice of this Court, when dealing

with the writ petition. Secondly, the workmen, including opposite party

in the writ petition, had forged their appointment letters and identity

cards. This too was not considered by the Labour Court. These are

good grounds for review.

5. He submits further, after the award was passed and his client

had challenged it in this Court, an interim order was made, pursuant to

which his client offered the workmen reinstatement. They took the

reinstatement but abandoned the work. In the circumstances, they

ought not to have been heard in support of the award.

6. Mr. Pati submits, applicant was heard on the writ petition and

no ground for review has been made out.

7. We find applicant was represented at hearing of the writ

petition, by separate counsel. So far as first and second grounds are

concerned, on query from Court, Mr. Mishra was constrained to submit

that the points were not taken in the writ petition, neither as statement

// 3 //

of facts nor as grounds. Moving on to the third ground regarding offer

and acceptance of reinstatement pursuant to order of Court making it a

condition for stay of execution, we reproduce below paragraph 11 from

interim order dated 28th January, 2022 of co-ordinate Bench, made

earlier in the writ petition.

"11. Considering the submissions made and peculiar facts of this case and without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, in the interim it is directed that the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sonepur in Execution Case No. 9 of 2016 shall remain stayed till next date and the executing Court is directed to release the attached items in favour of the petitioner subject to petitioner reinstating the opposite party in the service forthwith. It is made clear that this order will in no way influence the final adjudication of the writ petition on merits."

(emphasis supplied)

8. In view of aforesaid no more need be said regarding the

review application being without merit. It is dismissed.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 03-Jul-2023 19:22:26