Prabhakar Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5462 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2023


            Prabhakar Nayak                           ....               Petitioner

                                                            Mr. S. Dash, Advocate

                                           -versus-

            State of Odisha and others                ....         Opposite Parties

                                                           Ms. S. Pattanayak, AGA


            CORAM:
            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                           ORDER

08.05.2023

Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

(workman). He submits, by impugned order dated 24th February, 2022,

the Industrial Tribunal at Bhubaneswar directed letter of request being

sent to the Government for transfer of the reference to Presiding

Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela.

2. Drawing attention to the order of reference dated 9th October,

2017 he points out that the order was sent to, inter alia, Presiding

// 2 //

Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for information and

necessary action. The reference was registered and numbered and

proceeded with. Now, by impugned order the Tribunal has pointed out

a purported defect. In the circumstances, his client has applied for

issuance of corrigendum by representations dated 22nd July, 2022 and

12th January, 2023.

3. Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State.

4. Perused the reference order. It is clear therefrom that the order

was forwarded to Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Furthermore, petitioner was also informed to file statement of claim

complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. In the

circumstances, it is apparent that mention of Industrial Tribunal,

Rourkela in body of the order was an error.

5. Mr. Dash relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dabur

(Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Ltd. Deoghar, Bihar vs. The

Workman, reported in AIR 1968 SC 17, in paragraph 4 of which it

was said, inter alia, as would appear from a passage, extracted and

reproduced below (Manupatra print).

// 3 //

"The finding that it was a clerical error means that the Government in fact intended to make the reference to the Labour Court, Ranchi; but while actually scribing the order of reference, a mistake was committed by the writer of putting down Patna instead of Ranchi. Such a clerical error can always be corrected and such a correction does not amount either to the withdrawal of the reference from. or cancellation of the reference to. the Labour Court, Patna. The High Court was therefore right in rejecting this contention on behalf of the appellant."

6. Opposite party no.1 is directed to issue the corrigendum

forthwith. It be communicated to Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar and, thereupon, the proceeding under reference,

resumed. It is expected that the reference will be answered by three

months from date. Opposite party no.1 should keep that in mind, for

expeditious issuance of the corrigendum.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant

PRASAN Digitally signed by PRASANT T KUMAR KUMAR SAHOO Date: 2023.05.08 SAHOO 20:28:37 +05'30'