Remanded

Dhruba Padhan v. Radhika Sahu

Orissa HC26 Aug 2022WP(C)/14651/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that an unreasoned one-line order by the Joint Commissioner under Section 37(1) of the OHC & PFL Act, 1972 was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Competent Authority for re-adjudication with directions to dispose of the revision within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Joint Commissioner was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for re-adjudication with directions to dispose within three months.

Dhruba Padhan Vs Radhika Sahu — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) NO.14651 OF 2005

¶3

Dhruba Padhan & anr.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr.S.K.Padhi, Sr.Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Radhika Sahu & ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Party(s) Mr.S.P.Panda, AGA Mr.S.Misra, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER

26.8.2022

Order No.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶14

The Writ Petition involves a challenge to the order of the Competent Authority, vide Annexure-4 appearing to be decided in exercise of power under Section 37(1) of the OHC & PFL Act, 1972. The impugned order is challenged solely on the ground of unreasoned one.

¶15

Taking this court to the impugned order and reading through the same, there is an attempt by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that even assuming the Joint Commissioner has the power to remand but he has to record the reasoning in coming to such conclusion.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

There is no dispute by the Parties to contest that the impugned order is a one line order and without assigning any reason. For the opinion of this Court and looking to the nature of proceeding, a Revision under Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972 and the Parties have their case, it becomes necessary on the part of the revisional authority to at least show some reasons in coming to such conclusion, in absence of which such order is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court finds strength in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶19

Accordingly, interfering with the impugned order at Annexure-4, this Court remits the matter to the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation of Holdings, Sambalpur, O.P.5 for re-adjudication of the Section 37(1) of the OCH & PFL Act Proceeding. Since this

¶20

matter is decided in presence of the Parties to contest, all the Parties are directed to appear before O.P.5 or the Competent Authority in deciding such matter presently on 14.9.2022 along with a copy of this order. On their appearance, the Competent Authority shall fix a date of hearing of the Revision and entering into fresh hearing dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the Parties.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

With the above observation/direction, the Writ Petition

¶24

stands disposed of.

¶25

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶26

M.K.Rout

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Dhruba Padhan v. Radhika Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruba Padhan v. Radhika Sahu

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

Bithika Rani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Surya Narayan Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Padmini Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Bhupesh Ch.Patra Vs State

Ayeesha Bibi Vs State

Kailash Ch.Panigrahi Vs K.Kotanna @ P.R.Rao