Orissa High Court
Shradhakar Mohanty vs Management Of Cuttack on 1 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 122 of 2013
Shradhakar Mohanty ..... Appellant
Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate
Vs.
Management of Cuttack ..... Respondent
Municipal Corporation
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. S.N. Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
01.11.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
11.
2. Heard Mr. N. Biswal learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.N. Dash,
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment
dated 24.04.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2009 by which the
learned Single Judge modified the award dated 26.12.2008 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 70
of 2004 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and observed that as the compensation in lieu of
reinstatement is proper to a daily wager who has completed 240 days,
the management shall pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the
appellant-workman.
4. Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
ancillary order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge.
According to him, even though learned Single Judge had taken note of
the fact that the order of disengagement is within the definition of
retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act and as
such the Tribunal has rightly held that the termination of workman from
service was illegal and improper, but instead of directing for
reinstatement and grant of back wages, modified the order of
reinstatement to compensation. In order to substantiate his case,
reliance has been placed to the decision of this Court in the case of
Ananda Mahapatra v Bijay Mahapatra, 2017 (I) OLR 391.
5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent contended that since the award dated 26.12.2008 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 70
of 2004 was under scrutiny before the learned Single Judge in exercise
of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, the present writ appeal challenging order passed in the said
writ petition is not maintainable and as such, he claimed for dismissal
of the writ appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the record, it appears that there is no dispute that against the
award dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 70 of 2004 directing the management to
reinstate the workman in service and pay him 25% towards back wages,
the management had preferred W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2009. The learned
Single Judge by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India modified the award by observing that as the
compensation in lieu of reinstatement is proper to a daily wager who
has completed 240 days, therefore, the management has to pay a sum of
Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the workman.
7. In Rabindranath @ Rabindranath Jena v. Bijaya Kumar
Bhuyan & ors. 2016 (II) ILR -CUT-28, this Court has already taken
into consideration the maintainability of the writ appeal while
considering the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Odisha
Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 and this Court has taken similar view as
has been held by the apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State
of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 which has also been taken note of judgment
of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423
and this Court has also taken similar view in Smt. Swarnaprava
Pattnaik @ Das v. Dibakara Satpathy (Dead) through L.Rs. Lilly
Satpathy @ Panda and others (Writ Appeal No.346 of 2012) dismissed
on 08.12.2016 since the order passed by the learned Single Judge by
exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the writ
appeal is not maintainable. The same view has also been taken by this
Court in the case of Jyotshna Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, 2018 (I)
ILR-CUT-869.
8. Considering the law laid down by the apex Court as well as this
Court, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that as the
learned Single Judge, while deciding W.P.(C) No. 6849 of 2009, has
exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the present writ appeal is not maintainable. The objection raised on
behalf of respondent is thus answered in its favour.
9. As a consequence thereof, the writ appeal merits no consideration
and the same stands dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed (M.S. RAMAN)
Arun
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary JUDGE
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Nov-2023 10:55:24
