Kailash Ch Khatua Vs State of Orissa

Seeking to quash the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Managing Director of Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation LimitedOpposite Party No.2 under Annexure-10, wherein and whereby the representation dated 26.03.2016 of the Petitioner in compliance of this Court’s Order No.03, dated 17.03.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.17703 of 2015 has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was not continuing as an employee of the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited and he ceased to be an employee of said organisation following retrenchment in the year 2007 as approved by the Labour Commissioner, Odisha, this writ petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s) has been filed:-

¶15

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing the parties issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus and passed the following orders/directions:i) To quash the impugned order dtd-11.05.2016 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-10.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

ii) To quash the impugned order dtd-28.04.2015 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-6. iii) To quash the order dated-18.06.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No-3 as well as the order dated-22.05.2010 under Annexure-4.

¶18

iv) To declare the order of retrenchment of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2007 is illegal as the same is violation of the provisions of Section-25(N) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

¶19

v) To direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate the petition in service with full back wages. vi) To direct the Opposite Parties to extend all service as well as consequential benefits to the petitioner with in a time framed.

¶20

And pass such other orders/directions as deemed fit and proper.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner conceded that the retrenchment order being passed on 22.05.2010 could not have taken away the right of the employee with retrospective effect from 30.04.2007 and that too without granting any compensation in compliance of provision under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶23

3.1. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure-10) passed by the Opposite Party No.2, which reveals that:-

¶24

“*** In pursuance of above order of Hon’ble High Court, 39 Amins including the petitioner were retrenched from the employment of the Corporation w.e.f. 30.04.2007 in accordance with the above quoted permission granted by the Labour Commissioner, Odisha in his Order No.5252 dt.28.03.2007. The Govt. in Water Resources Department had already accorded permission and released

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Rs.6,13,17,582/- for effecting retrenchment of 250 nos. of Zero/Surplus staff in OLIC including these 39 Amins.

¶27

Further the OLIC Amins Sangh filed another case in the Hon’ble High Court vide WP(C) No.10273 of 2010 wherein the retrenchment of Amins of OLIC made after disposal of WP(C) No.474/03 was challenged the said case is sub-juddice. ”

¶28

3.2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on perusal of this Court has placed an order dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.10273 of 2010 ( Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Amin Sangha vs. State of Orissa and others) by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Relevant portion of the said order is quoted here-in-below:-

¶29

“12. As noted, while dismissing the earlier Writ Petition, this Court had specifically observed, taking into account the nature of work being performed by the Amins, who are members of the Organisation at whose behest the said Writ Petition was filed that keeping in view the continuous nature of the work and also taking into account that “even private Amin’s who are engaged by the corporation to perform the work of Amin” that cabinet Sub-committee may consider the case of the Petitioner-Association for their continuance.

¶30

13. On a conspectus of materials on record and taking into account the rival contentions and keeping in view the observation of this Court in W.P.(C) No.474 of 2003, referred to herein above, regarding the engagement of even outsiders to perform the work of Amin being done by the Petitioners, this Court while not entertaining this W.P.(C) reiterates the direction as passed in W.P.(C) No.474 of 2003.

¶31

14. Since the earlier Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court more than a decade back, the exercise by the Cabinet Sub-Committee be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/communication of this order.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the claim of the petitioner-association.

¶34

16. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner relating to the emoluments under the ID Act, it is directed that if the members of the Petitioners association have any subsisting grievance regarding the retrenchment compensation, it shall be open for them to agitate the same in an independent proceeding, individually.

¶35

17. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.”

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner conceded that since W.P.(C) No.10273 of 2010 has been disposed of after the impugned Order dated 11.05.2016, the present matter can be disposed of in terms of the observation made in the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in mentioned writ petition.

¶37

In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and taking note of order dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.10273 of 2010 of co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms contained in said order in writ petition.

¶38

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶39

Laxmikant

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2025 17:37:02

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Kailash Ch Khatua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Ch Khatua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuni Mallik Vs Sridhara Mallik

Josna Rani Panda Vs Ratikanta Dash

Manisha Dey Vs Lipan Ku.Ram

Saudamini Swain Vs Tpcodl, Puri

Sushanta Kumar Kabi Vs Aabsys Information Technology

Jhuni Rani Patra @Ray Vs State of Odisha