FARID KHAN Vs. ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of the direction contained in paragraph -6 of the order dated 18 -8 -1998 passed in O. J. C. No. 7864 of 1996, wherein it has been observed that since work -charged establishment has been abolished and there are only D.L.R., N.M.R. and Regular establishments, the petitioner be given a suitable engagement as an N.M.R. employee, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the opp. party that the work -charged establishment stood abolished since 1973.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that as there are skilled employees under the work -charged establishment and the petitioner was admittedly working as a work -charged employees, he should be appointed under the work -charged establishment. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the affidavit filed by Sri Surendra Mohapatra, the Secretary of the Corporation in the aforesaid writ application indicating in paragtaph -4 thereof that three employees namely (1) Kishore Chandra Pande, Khalasi, (2) Sri Akshaya Kumar Kanungo, Amin and (3) Sri Fanindra Nath Mohanty, Pump helper are continuing in the work -charged establishment. Learned counsel for the opp. patty, however, reiterated his submission that the work -charged establishment has stood abolished since 1973 and the aforesaid three employees are continuing on the basis of the direction of the High Court as well as by the LabourCourt. On such submission of the learned counsel for the opp. party, we called upon the opp. party to produce before us the said orders of this Court or of the Labour Court by virtue of which the aforesaid three employees were continuing as work -charged employees by order dated 14 -9 -1993.

(3.) ON a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation along with the affidavits filed by its Secretary, it is clear that even though the Corporation has taken the stand that the work -charged establishment was stood abolished since 1973,still three work -charged employees are working in the Corporation. The plea of the Corporation that those three work -charged employees are working in view of the orders of theLabour Court and the order of this Court is not substantiated byproducing any order thereto inasmuch as the Secretary himselfhas sworn the affidavit that no record is available to indicatethat they are continuing as such pursuant to any order of theCourt, If no record is available as to whether those threeemployees are working in the work -charged establishment, it isunfortunate as to how the Corporation could take the stand thatthey are continuing by virtue of the order of the Court. Thisin our opinion depict a very sad picture as to how the mannerin which the Corporation is managing its affairs and itsemployees. In the circumstances, we have no option but to holdthat the stand taken by the Corporation that the work -chargedestablishment stood abolished since 1973, is false and cannot beaccepted. Undisputedly, the petitioner before termination of hisengagement was working in the work -charged establishment. Inview of the specific stand of the opp. party -Corporation in theircounter filed in the writ application, this Court while disposingof the writ application directed that the petitioner may be engagedas an N.M.R. employes since there is no work -charged employeecontinuing in the establishment. But, since it is now found thatthree persons still continuing in the work -charged establishment,the basic of the earlier order for engagement of the petitioneras N.M.R. having failed, it has to be directed that the petitionershould be taken in the work -charged establishment, be havingworked in the said establishment earlier to his termination whichhaving been held as illegal in the writ application, he is to bereinstated as an N.M.R. employee.