PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITI Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Review Petition involves a prayer by the Management/ Writ Petitioner M/s.Prajatantra Prachar Samiti seeking review of the judgment of this Court dtd. 5/5/2023 passed in W.P.(C).No.8966 of 2018.

(2.) Short background involving the case appears to be as a first step Industrial Adjudication vide I.D.Case No.04 of 1993 involved a reference as to 'Whether the action of M/s.Prajatantra Prachar Samiti, Cuttack in not regularizing the services of Sri Jugal Kishore Baral and 19 others as permanent workmen is legal and/or justified?, if not what direction in this regard is necessary? It is submitted in disposal of I.D.Case No. 04 of 1993, the Industrial Adjudicator held Management not regularizing the services of Jugal Kishore Baral and others as permanent workmen is not legal and justified and the members of the 2nd Party are entitled to be regularized with immediate effect. This award being challenged by Management/petitioner vide O.J.C.No.13426 of 1999, it got dismissed by a judgment of this Court dtd. 27/4/2012, a further challenge of the same again by the Management in the Apex Court in SLP CC No.1903/13, which also got dismissed by Apex Court by its order dtd. 21/1/2013. A Review Petition being brought by the Management, Apex Court by its order dtd. 23/7/2013 dismissed the Review Petition No.1502 of 2013 in limini. This lead the workmen bringing a Petition under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D. Act') proceeding for computation of monetary entitlements registered on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as Misc. Case No.90 of 2016. This 33-C (2) proceeding was allowed in favour of Workmen vide its order dtd. 5/7/2017 and for non-implementation of such direction, there is also initiation of a proceeding under Sec. 33(1) of the I.D.Act.

(3.) Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner contended the review petition is brought in a very very narrow compass for modification of conditions attached therein and in the process though taking this Court to the Management9s plea in paragraphs-3 to 9 of the Review Petition questioning the maintainability of the proceeding under Sec. 33(C) (2) of the I.D. Act both on merit and other technical aspects seeks indulgence of this Court to modify the final order in W.P.(C).No.8966 of 2018 but limited to the conditions imposed while remanding the matter.