Dismissed

Balkrishna Das v. State

Orissa HC14 Sept 2021OJC/10384/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought regularization of service by challenging only a show-cause notice for retrenchment, while failing to challenge the subsequent order disengaging him or initiating proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held the writ petition not maintainable as the claim became infructuous upon retrenchment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it could not be entertained given the retrenchment of the petitioner.

Balkrishna Das Vs State — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

OJC No.10384 of 2001

¶3

Balkrishna Das

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Nilamadhab Sarkar, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.Somnath Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.2-OFDC

¶10

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

¶11

ORDER 14.09.2021

¶12

Order No.

¶13

B.P. Routray, J.

¶14

¶15

The Petitioner has prayed that his services be regularised by setting aside the proposed retrenchment notice dated 13^th July, 2001.

¶16

The Petitioner was initially appointed on 1^st October, 1989 as Junior Stenographer temporarily on daily wage basis in the Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) and worked at Commercial Division, Berhampur. While serving as such, he filed OJC No.18532 of 1997 praying for his regularization on the basis of Resolution dated 15^th May, 1997 issued by the Government of Odisha in Finance Department. In the meantime due to reduction in timber business and huge loss sustained, OFDC decided to reduce its staff strength by retrenchment as a matter of policy decision. Consequently on 13^th July, 2001, OFDC issued notice to dispense with the service of the Petitioner as a surplus staff. The

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Petitioner filed his show cause reply on 17^th July, 2001 submitting that he may be allowed to continue and be regularized in service since he has been rendering service with all sincerity and devotion. Then on 31^st July, 2001, OFDC disengaged the Petitioner with payment of Rs.15,487/- towards retrenchment benefits.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he has rendered 12 years of continuous service sincerely and efficiently to the utmost satisfaction of the authority. Though the Government has decided in its Resolution dated 15^th May, 1997 for regularization of all the temporary workers in suitable vacancies, but his case was not considered. So he filed OJC No.18532 of 1997 praying for regularization and during pendency of the said writ petition, his service has been disengaged.

¶20

OFDC has filed its counter stating that as a matter of policy decision and consequent upon merger of three corporations, Viz. Odisha Plantation Development Corporation, Similipal Forest Development Corporation and Odisha Forest Corporation into the Odisha Forest Development Corporation, a huge number of surplus staffs were required to be retrenched. Further, the work load of the Corporation was also reduced due to ban on felling of trees and its depots were reduced to 19 from 50. So to save the Corporation from huge financial burden, the number of surplus employees engaged on daily wage basis were retrenched as a matter of policy decision. Before disengaging the Petitioner, the procedures prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act)

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

was duly followed with payment of required amount of compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the OFDC submits that the Petitioner is a workman under the OFDC who was engaged as such on daily wage basis. As a matter of policy decision due to various reasons including financial crunch, the surplus staff particularly temporary appointees have been decided for disengagement. Accordingly, the Petitioner was disengaged with prior notice of show cause and was paid the retrenchment benefits as per the provisions of the ID Act. So the Petitioner should challenge his order of retrenchment under the provisions of ID Act and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶24

Having heard both parties, it is seen that the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8^th April, 2015. The Petitioner does not question his retrenchment order dated 31^st July, 2001 and on the other hand only challenges the show cause notice issued to him dated 13^th July, 2001. When the Petitioner does not deny the specific contention of the Opposite Parties that his service has already been disengaged by order dated 31^st July, 2001, his prayer for regularization cannot be entertained.

¶25

The Petitioner remains complete silent about any proceeding initiated by him under the ID Act against the order of retrenchment. He also does not dispute receipt of retrenchment benefit to the tune of Rs.15,487/-. A copy of the order of

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

retrenchment dated 31^st July, 2001 has been filed by the Opposite Parties in OJC No.18532 of 1997 and by order dated 16^th April, 2004 passed in that case, this Court has observed that after retrenchment of the service of the Petitioner, his claim for regularization has become infructuous.

¶28

In the present writ petition, the Petitioner without challenging the order of retrenchment makes the same prayer for regularization of service in terms of Resolution dated 15^th May, 1997 of Government of Odisha in Finance Department. The Opposite Parties have categorically averred in their counter that the Petitioner has been retrenched from service on 31^st July, 2001 and the Petitioner neither disputes this nor challenges his order of retrenchment. So his claim for regularization is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the retrenchment.

¶29

Thus we do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

( B.P. Routray)

¶31

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶32

B.K. Barik

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Balkrishna Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrishna Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryamani Mallik Vs State of Orissa

Jagannath Mishra Vs Commnr.Consolidn.

Surendra Sunani Vs I.I.C.Sambalpur

Ajaya Kumar Jena Vs O.a.Tribunal

Baripadaspinningmill Vs State

Union of India Vs Raja@Rajkishor Parid