Disposed

Sarat Biswal v. Chairman,M.C.F.L.

Orissa HC25 Aug 2022WP(C)/4925/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought regularization of service. The High Court held that the matter lacks jurisdiction for direct adjudication and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate Government or Industrial Adjudicator within four weeks. The interim order from May 2003 was extended for six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to approach appropriate Government or Industrial Adjudicator within four weeks; interim order of 27.05.2003 continues for six months.

Sarat Biswal Vs Chairman,M.C.F.L. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 4925 of 2003

¶3

Sarat Biswal and others

¶4

….. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. D. Biswal, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Chairman, MCFL and others ….. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. N.C. Sahu, Advocate, (O.P.1 and 4) S. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P.2, 3) Mr.P.K. Parhi, ASGI

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶12

ORDER

¶13

25.08.2022

¶14

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 17.

¶15

The petitioners have filed this application seeking for direction to the opposite parties to declare petitioners as regular employees of the Corporation.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since the petitioners have sought for regularization liberty may be granted to them to approach the appropriate forum namely appropriate government or industrial adjudicator ventilating their grievance for regularization in service in accordance with law. To substantiate his contention reliance has been placed on the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V.K.V Sharmik Sang and others JT 2002 (4) SC 115. It is further stated that till the matter is adjudicated and disposed of by the authority the interim order passed by this Court on 27.05.2003 be allowed to continue in view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgment.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the opposite parties strenuously urged that so far regularization of the petitioners is concerned this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and as such the relief sought by the petitioners can only to adjudicated by the appropriate Government or by the Industrial Adjudicator in accordance with law.

¶18

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

and after going through the records, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case this writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the appropriate Government or Industrial Adjudicator ventilating their grievance in consonance with the ratio decided in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai mentioned (supra). If the petitioners approach the said forum within a period of four weeks from today the appropriate Government Industrial Adjudicator shall consider the same and pass order in accordance with law within a period of six months thereafter by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The interim order passed by this Court on 27.05.2003 shall continue for a period of six month.

¶21

It is open to the opposite parties to raise such objection as raised before the Court before the appropriate Government Industrial Adjudicator in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above observation and direction the writ application stands

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

Arun

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Sarat Biswal v. Chairman,M.C.F.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarat Biswal v. Chairman,M.C.F.L.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Durga Prasad Das

M/S. Shakti Builders, Bbsr Vs State of Orissa

Sankritan Nayak Vs State

Dhirendra Mohanty Vs Collector,Balasore

Purusottam Gomango Vs State and Ors.

Shyamsundar Das Vs Union of India