The Management Of The Vice vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11597 Ori

Orissa High Court

The Management Of The Vice vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 December, 2025

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   W.P.(C) No.27772 of 2013
                 The Management of the Vice            ....              Petitioner
                 President (Operations), M/s.
                 Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys
                 Limited, Rayagada
                              Mr. Narendra Kishore Mishra, Senior Advocate

                                            -versus-
                 State of Odisha and Others            ....    Opposite Parties

                                                     Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
                                                   Additional Standing Counsel
                                                     Mr. Kamal Ray, Advocate
                                                     (for Opposite Party No.3)



                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             22.12.2025

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

2. This is an application for correction of the typographical errors in the judgment dated 10th December, 2025.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that in the cause title, the Opposite Party No.2 has been inadvertently described as "The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar" in place of "The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar." 3.1. He further submits that in 8th and 9th lines of paragraph-24 at page-24 of the judgment, the name of the Company, namely,

"Indian Charge Chrome Limited" has been inadvertently stated in place of "Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited."

4. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Labour Union representing the Workmen also agrees to the same.

5. Perused the judgment. The submission of learned counsel for the parties appears to be correct.

6. Hence, the typographical errors as stated above be corrected accordingly.

7. The corrected certified copy of the judgment if applied for shall be provided as per rules.

8. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge Himansu

Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH