Dismissed

Hindustan Steel Work v. Mgt.of Steel Authori

Orissa HC22 Mar 2023WA/574/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa held that a writ appeal is not maintainable when the Single Judge dismissed the petition under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction over an Industrial Tribunal award, distinguishing cases filed under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

What the court decided

Hindustan Steel Work Vs Mgt.of Steel Authori — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 574 of 2011

¶3

Hindustan Steel Workers Association …. Appellants

¶4

Mr. Jaydeep Pal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Management of Steel Authority of Respondents India Limited, Rourkela and Others

¶7

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶8

Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General along with Mr. Jateswar Nayak, CGC Mr. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Order No.

ORDER 22.03.2023

Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant argues that in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned order that the writ petition is being dismissed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the present writ appeal is maintainable notwithstanding that the writ petition challenged an award of the Industrial Tribunal. He accordingly seeks to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd. v. Ummed Singh Lodhi 2021 SCC Online SC 973.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand, points out that the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge would not be determined by what is stated in the impugned order itself but by the very nature of the jurisdiction exercised. He points out that a challenge to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal by way of writ petition is necessarily in the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. He also refers to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammad Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfeez (2008) II OLR (FB) 725 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in Mahammad Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfeez (2010) 13 SCC 517.

¶16

Having considered the above submissions, the Court is of the view that the present writ appeal is indeed not maintainable as such, since the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Appellant’s writ petition was in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was, in other words, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court while judicially reviewing an order of the Industrial Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶17

Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Mahammad Saud (supra) and Caparo Engineering India Ltd. (supra), the Court is of the view that the present writ appeal is not maintainable as such. This will of course not preclude the Appellant from seeking the other appropriate remedies as may be available to the Appellant in accordance with law.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

S.K. Jena/Secy.

¶20

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed on the ground of maintainability in the above terms.

¶21

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶22

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Hindustan Steel Work v. Mgt.of Steel Authori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Hindustan Steel Work v. Mgt.of Steel Authori

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

Ananta Kumar Malik Vs State of Odisha

Subash Choudhury @ Choudhuri Vs State of Odisha

Gmomq and Anr. Vs Bhubaneswar Thakur

State of Odisha Vs Dhabal Pr.Pradhan

Dambarudhar Behera Vs State of Orissa

State of Odisha Vs Namita Behera