This petition challenged a common order dated 28.11.2016 dismissing multiple writ petitions involving industrial disputes and regularization of workmen under the Contract Labour Act. The court held it lacked power as an appellate forum and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 12225 of 2017
14.07.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioners have filed this writ petition to recall/modify the judgment dated
28.11.2016 passed in O.J.C. No. 729 of 1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the aforesaid writ petit
ion the Union representing the workmen have not appeared therefore, the order dated 28.11.2016
be recalled. In support of his contention he has cited the decision in the case of Ram Janam
Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1994 S.C. 1722.
A batch of writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated 28.11.2016. T
he subject matter of those writ petitions are as follows:-
All these writ petitions involved the issue which pertains to Industrial Dispu
tes raised by the workmen for their regularization under the Contract Labour (Regulation and A
bolition) Act, 1970 giving rise to I.D. Case No. 16 of 1969 and as such all the cases have bee
n directed to be heard together and accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by th
is common order.
2. W.P.(C) Nos. 10540, 5859, 5861, 5862, 5863, 5864, 5865, 5866, 5867, 5868, 5
869, 5870, 5871, 5872, 5873, 5874, 5875, 10541, 10543, 10544, 10545, 10546, 10547, 10548, 1055
5, 10838, 10849, 10840, 10841, 10843, 10844, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10850, 10867, 16206, 16208,
16213, 16215 & 10839 of 2015 having been filed by the Management of M/s. Steel Authority of In
dia Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela (hereinafter referred as writ petitions preferred
by the Management) in which the order passed under Section 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 19
47 in different miscellaneous applications pertaining to I.D. Case No. 16 of 1996 has been cha
llenged whereby and where under the maintainability of the application filed by the workmen un
der Section 33-A has been questioned.
3. WP.(C) Nos. 14098, 14099, 14100, 14101, 14102, 14103, 14104, 14105, 14106,
14107, 14108, 14109, 14110, 14111, 14112, 14113, 14114, 14115, 14116, 14117, 14118, 14119, 141
20, 14189, 14190, 14191, 14192, 14193, 14194, 14195, 14196, 14197, 14198, 14199, 14200, 14201,
14202, 14203, 15105 & 15106 of 2015 having been filed by the workmen (hereinafter referred to
as writ petitions filed by the workmen) wherein the workmen have questioned the order passed
by the Industrial Tribunal on the application filed under Section 33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 w
hereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to pass order for reinstatement of the workmen
in service.
4. W.P.(C) No. 153 of 2008 having been filed by the workman questioning the or
der passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 20.11.2007 whereby and where under the restoration
application filed by the workmen has been held to be not maintainable and accordingly the pet
ition has been dismissed.
O.J.C. No. 729 of 1999 having been filed by the Management, Steel Authority of
India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela challenging the notification dated 17th Decembe
r, 1998 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Odisha.
W.P.(C) No. 10273 of 2014 having been filed by another group of workmen assail
ing the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby and where under the proceeding arising
out of I.D. Case No. 17of 2004 has been kept in abeyance till disposal of O.J.C. No. 729 of 1
999 filed by the Management.
At the time of hearing since the concerned parties have appeared in some of th
e writ petitions through counsel, instead of issuing notice individually the writ petitions we
re heard analogously. All the issues are being dealt with in the aforesaid common order as suc
h the present case is not similar to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitio
ner in the case of Ram Janam Singh(supra).
The writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 28.11.2016. Since
the present application is filed in the nature of appeal this Court is not inclined to sit ove
r the said order as appellate forum.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. Panda, J
..
S.N.Prasad, J
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to recall a common order dismissing multiple writ petitions filed by workmen and management.
Whether the absence of the Union representing workmen in a related writ petition bars recalling a common order dismissed this case involved industrial disputes raised by workmen for regularization und
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Janam Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶3
RAM JANAM SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AIR 1994 S.C. 1722 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Learned counsel for the petitioners
S. Panda
S.N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court