Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 62 (ORI)

Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited v. State Of Orissa

2020-02-24

A.K.MISHRA, S.K.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - Petitioner No.1 is a company having Human Resource Policy Circular No.24 dated 27.4.2009, the said policy was given effect by notification of rules for promotion vide Human Resource Policy Circular dated 16.6.2009. Thereafter, the company invited application on 25.7.2009 for promotion. The opposite party no.3, working as Operative-Cum-Senior Technician, had applied for promotion along with others. The selection process was not taken up. On 13.11.2010, fresh applications were invited with specification that previously applied employees were not required to apply again. Seventy-eight applicants were found eligible to appear written test. The opposite party no.3 participated in the entire process and in the merit list secured Sl. No.62. Finally, forty-four candidates were selected for promotion to executive cadre, w.e.f. 1.5.2010 and opposite party no.3 did not qualify. 2. The grievance of opposite party no.3 was taken up in a conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and upon failure of conciliation, the Government made reference under section 10(1)(c) on 9.12.2014 as follows:- "Whether the action of the management of Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur in not considering the case of Sri Narahari Mohanty. Operative-Cum-Senior Technician for promotion to the post of Junior Officer (Executive) while giving promotion to 44 persons to that post is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief if Sri Mohanty entitled to?". 2-A. The said reference was taken up by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar registering I.D. Case No.31 of 2014. The Court settled the issue on 21.9.2015 and directed the workman opposite party no.3 to adduce evidence. 2-B. The Government issued a corrigendum on 28.10.2016 as follows:- "The term of reference specified in the schedule issued vide this Department Order No.10072 dtd. 9.12.2014 may be read as follows: Whether the action of the management of Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. , Kalinganagar, Jajpur in not adhering to the policy Circular No.24 dtd. 27.04.2009 and not considering the case of Sri Narahari Mohanty, Operative-Cum-Senior Technician for promotion to the post of Junior Officer (Executive) while giving promotion to 44 persons to that post is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief is Sri Mohanty entitled to?." The learned Labour Court on 26.11.2016 resettled the issue in view of the receipt of corrigendum dated 28.9.2016. 3. If not, what relief is Sri Mohanty entitled to?." The learned Labour Court on 26.11.2016 resettled the issue in view of the receipt of corrigendum dated 28.9.2016. 3. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is to quash not only the corrigendum issued by the Government on 28.9.2016 but also the order of the Labour Court dtd.26.11.2016 in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014. 3-A. The workman - opposite party no.3 filed counter affidavit, stating that Government has no mala fide intention to bring such corrigendum and the policy circular for promotion was revised without offering opportunity to the Non-Executive employees. The subsequent corrigendum is no way illegal being not meant to cancel, supersede or to withdraw any earlier term of reference. 4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. A. Mohanty relying upon a decision reported in State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and others, 1958 AIR(SC) 1018 assiduously advanced argument that the impugned corrigendum dated 28.9.2016 is meant to enhance the scope of adjudication with regard to promotion of 44 persons with reference to the policy circular dated 27.4.2009 which was not made in the initial reference dated 9.12.2014 and such corrigendum amounts to withdrawal of the first reference which was confined to adjudicate the matter of not considering the promotion of opposite party no.3 alone. Mr. Mohaty also submits that while making corrigendum, the management was not heard and after two years of the original reference, when the proceeding had already progressed substantially to the stage of evidence, issuance of a corrigendum was nothing but mala fide and required to be quashed. It is further submitted that the learned Labour Court order to resettle the issue being consequential to the corrigendum without importing the purport of the corrigendum, the said order should be set aside. 4-A. Learned Counsel Mr. Das for opposite party no.3 submitted that a corrigendum can be issued which is clarificatory in nature and the cited decision in D.N. Ganguly case does not prohibit the same. He has further submitted that management is trying to take advantage against the workmen because the corrigendum was not issued to take away the original reference. 5. The order dated 26.11.2016 of the learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014 in resettling the issue is a dependent order being consequential to corrigendum issued on 26.10.2016. The legality of the corrigendum would decide the sustainability of the same. 5. The order dated 26.11.2016 of the learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014 in resettling the issue is a dependent order being consequential to corrigendum issued on 26.10.2016. The legality of the corrigendum would decide the sustainability of the same. It is noteworthy that the ratio of the cited judgment in D.N. Gaguly case (Supra) was based upon the issue involved pertaining to cancellation or supersession of the reference made and not of the modification or correction, and for that it is distinguishable on facts. 6. On careful perusal of original reference dated 9.12.2014 and corrigendum dated 28.9.2016 in the backdrop of facts that the company management had several circulars to deal with promotion matters, it is apparent that the issuance of corrigendum was meant to substitute the original reference. It is because of the facts that by corrigendum only one circular is referred to while in the initial reference no such limitation is stipulated for consideration of promotion of opposite party no.3. If the adjudication of the Labour Court with regard to the promotion of opposite party no.3 would be confined only to adherence to a circular dated 27.4.2009, in our considered opinion, the scope of adjudication for reference dated 9.12.2014 is squeezed within the compartment of the corrigendum. 6-A. The Labour Tribunal can consider in addition to the dispute specified in the order of reference, the matters incidental to the said dispute and such implied power cannot be limited by issuing corrigendum subsequent to the reference. While exercising such adjudicating power for original reference, the parties can raise objection and bring the testing materials upon which dispute can be considered. It is noteworthy that in the D.N. Ganguly case Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that once an order in writing is made by the appropriate Government referring an industrial dispute to the tribunal, proceedings before the Tribunal are deemed to have commenced and the Tribunals are to hold their proceedings expeditiously. 7. For the reasons stated above the corrigendum dated 28.9.2016 (Annexure-8) is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The dependent order dated 26.11.2016 in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014 in resettling the issue is not sustainable because corrigendum the basis of such order is found to be invalid. 9. In the wake of above analysis, the writ application is allowed. 8. The dependent order dated 26.11.2016 in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014 in resettling the issue is not sustainable because corrigendum the basis of such order is found to be invalid. 9. In the wake of above analysis, the writ application is allowed. The corrigendum dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure-6) and the corrigendum dated 28.9.2016 (Annexure-8) and order dated 26.11.2016 in I.D. Case No.31 of 2014 pending in the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar are hereby quashed. 10. The learned Labour Court is directed to speed up the adjudication so as to ensure its completion within six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. 11. All the interim orders passed in the proceeding stands vacated.