Disposed

M/S Clean N Clean, Bbsr v. the Director General, Cipet, Head Office, Tvk Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai

Orissa HC22 Nov 2024RVWPET/279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applicant sought recall of an earlier order disposing of its wage-related writ petition, relying on liberty reserved by the Supreme Court when its special leave petition was dismissed as not pressed. Finding error apparent on the face of the record since annexure-3 was mentioned in the prayer, the court condoned delay, allowed the review and recalled the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned, review allowed and order dated 5th April, 2024 recalled; writ petition listed for hearing on 2nd December, 2024.

M/S Clean N Clean, Bbsr Vs the Director General… — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.279 of 2024

¶2

M/s. Clean N Clean, BBSR

¶3

…. Applicant

¶4

Represented By Adv. – Mrs. R. Sikdar, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The Director General, CIPET, …. Opposite Parties Head Office, TVK Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai and others

¶7

Represented By Adv. –

Mr. M.K. Pati, CGC

Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶12

AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶14

ORDER 22.11.2024

¶15

RVWPET no.279 of 2024 and

¶16

I.A. nos.411 and 412 of 2024

¶17

Order No.

¶18

01.

¶19

1. Mrs. Sikdar, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant, who was petitioner in the writ petition disposed of by our

¶20

order dated 5^th April, 2024. She submits, her client moved the

¶21

Supreme Court against said order. The special leave petition stood

¶22

Page 1 of 2

¶23

dismissed as not pressed on order dated 6^th September, 2024. However, liberty as sought by her client before the Supreme Court was reserved to him, to move this Court in its review jurisdiction. Hence, her client is before Court seeking recall of said order dated 5^th April, 2024 for adjudicating the challenge.

¶24

2. Text of order dated 6^th September, 2024 made by the Supreme Court in applicant’s petition for special leave to appeal (C) no.15552 of 2024, is reproduced below.

¶25

“ 1. Heard Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶26

2. The counsel submits that the High Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition on the erroneous understanding that the order dated 01.02.2021 was not challenged in the proceeding. The counsel submits that it was actually challenged in the proceedings . The petitioner would therefore move the High Court in its review jurisdiction.

¶27

3. Noting the above submission, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as not pressed, reserving the liberty as aforesaid.

¶28

4. In the event of an adverse order, the aggrieved party may move this Court again.”

¶29

(emphasis supplied)

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

3. Reproduced below is prayer from applicant’s writ petition WP(C) no.35956 of 2023.

¶32

“ The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition, issue RULE NISI to the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the Opp. party Nos.1 and 6 shall not be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,22,344/- towards differential amount along with compensation of Rs.6,000/- to the workmen within a stipulated period,

¶33

And further be pleased to direct that the petitioner is not liable to pay the above amount in any manner,

¶34

And if the Opp. parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule be made absolute thereby directing the Opp. party Nos.1 and 6 to pay the differential amount under Minimum Wages Act along with compensation to the workmen within a stipulated period and quash the Annexure-3 and 4 as against the petitioner,

¶35

And pass any other appropriate order/orders, Writ/writs, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice,

¶36

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

4. Mr. Pati, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of Union of India and submits, the application is

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

barred by delay. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

¶41

5. We do find mention of annexure-3 in prayer made in the writ petition. Annexure-3 is said order dated 1^st February, 2021. It is clear, we missed noticing annexure-3 in the prayer because there was no mention of order dated 1^st February, 2021. However, our reason for not noticing annexure-3 mentioned in the prayer does not after the fact that there thus was error apparent in our order dated 5^th April, 2024.

¶42

6. The delay is condoned. For reasons aforesaid the review is allowed. Order dated 5^th April, 2024 is recalled. The review and applications made therein are disposed of.

¶43

7. List the writ petition [(WP(c) no.35956 of 2023)] on 2^nd December, 2024.

¶44

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶45

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Prasant

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 22-Nov-2024 17:57:07

¶49

Page 4 of 4

M/S Clean N Clean, Bbsr v. the Director General, Cipet, Head Office, Tvk Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Clean N Clean, Bbsr v. the Director General, Cipet, Head Office, Tvk Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Indrani Patnaik

M/S Arunaday Tobacco Industries , Kalahandi Vs Union of India

Narmada Sahoo Vs Rajesh Kumar Behera

M/S.Iot Utkal Energy Services Ltd. Vs Union of India

Mamata Das Vs State of Odisha

Collector and Chairman,Indian Red Cross Society,Mayurbhanj Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1,BARIPADA