Judgment:
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. In O.J.C. No. 10210 of 2001 altogether nine petitioners, in O.J.G. No. 10941 of 2001, 21 petitioners, in O.J.C. No. 10942 of 2001, 10 petitioners, in O.J.C. No. 12011 of 2001 and in O.J.C. No. 12425 - one petitioner each, in O.J.C. No. 12643 of 2001, fifteen petitioners and in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001- five petitioners have claimed for quashing of the order of retrenchment respectively Annexure-6, in O.J.C. Nos. 10210, 10941 and 10942 of 2001 Annexure-1, in O.J.C. No. 12011 of 2001, Annexures 4 and 5, in O.J.C. No. 12425 of 2001, Annexure-4, in O.J.C. No. 12643 of 2001 and Annexure-2 series in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001. Except the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001, the petitioners in rest of the writ applications have claimed themselves as the displaced persons because of constructions of Water Reservoirs by the State Government under Bajtarani, Subarnarekha and Budhabalanga Irrigation Projects. In O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001, petitioners have challenged the order of retrenchment being employed as N.M.Rs. but they have not claimed to be looser of the land or displaced persons because of the Subarnarekha Irrigation Project.
2. The Chief Engineer and Basin Manager, Battarani, Subarnarekha and Budhabalanga Basin, Laxmiposi, in the district of Mayurbhanj and the Superintending Engineer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Circle at Laxmiposi, in the district of Mayurbhanj and Engineer-in-chief, Department of Water Resources, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar, are the common opposite party members (with variations of their serial number) in all the above noted writ applications. The concerned Executive Engineers of Subarnarekha Irrigation Project and Stores and Mechanical Division, Division No. 1, Jharpokharia, Division No. II, Haladia, Division No. Ill, Deuli, Deuli Rehabilitation Division, Laxmiposi, Quality Control Division, Laxmiposi, Baitarani Canal Division, Baitarani, are some of the opposite party members in some of the cases. Similarly, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa, in the Water Resources Department and Secretary, Department of Finance, are the opposite party members in some of the above noted writ applications.
3. Since the cases and contention of the parties in each of the writ application is similar or identical relating to the above noted orders of retrenchment by the competent authorities under the direction of the Government, therefore, contention of the writ petitioners and the objection of the Government Counsel to such prayers proceeded on same footing. Thus, this common judgment shall abide the result in all the writ applications.
4. Grievance of the writ petitioners (except in O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001) is that they being the displaced persons as the looser of the land because of the Irrigation Project, they were employed as N.M.Rs, with an assurance of regularisation and in that respect, Book-let was issued by the State Government for providing employment to the displaced person. When they have worked for considerable period, even as N.M.R. the above decision of the State Government to render them as surplus staff and to issue notice of retrenchment is not only breach of the undertaking and commitment of the State Government relating to the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to the displaced persons but also against all norms, provided under the Finance Department relating to regularisation of the services of N.M.Rs. They further state that the cases of surplus in staff as projected by the State is not correct and under such circumstances, the order of retrenchment being absolutely illegal and against the interest of justice, the same be quashed and they be allowed to continue as N.M.Rs. until regularised in service. Accordingly, they have prayed to quash the concerned retrenchment orders. They have also stated that the orders of retrenchment is in violation of different provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'the I.D. Act'). In O.J.C. No. 12660 of 2001 a similar contention has been raised except advancing the plea of right to employment as displaced person.
5. All the writ applications were taken up for admission and final disposal at that stage. In view of the objections raised by learned counsel representing the State of Orissa that the writ applications are not maintainable inasmuch as if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of retrenchment, then they are to seek redressal under the I.D. Act and if they claim for regularisation, then they should place their contention before the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal. In that context, contention of the writ petitioners is that High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to render substantial justice and to cater to the equity and therefore, mere availability of alternative remedy is no bar to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Their further contention is that stay of the order of encroachment could not have been made by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore the petitioners would not have been able to get adequate relief if they would have approached the Tribunal. They have also stated that there being no claim for immediate regularisation/appointment, therefore, the provision in the Administrative Tribunal Act shall not be attracted to create jurisdiction in favour of the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal. Such contentions of the parties need careful consideration.
6. Contention of the petitioners that as the Industrial Tribunal has no authority or jurisdiction to stay an order of retrenchment, therefore, they have invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is found by this Court to be devoid of merit inasmuch as, if on due adjudication of the matter the Tribunal shall find that the orders of retrenchment are illegal then the provision of law enables him to direct the employer to make payment of the wages/salary. Once such a remedy is available and in that event petitioners being not loosing financial benefit, the aforesaid argument of the petitioners is not meritorious to justify excluding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and to invoke the writ jurisdiction by this Court.
7. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, reads as hereunder :
'15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals :
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State;
(b) all service matters concerning a person (not being a person referred to in Clause (c) of this Sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section (14) appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the State Government; .
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation (or society) or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment.
(2) The State Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of Sub-section (3) to local or other authorities and corporations (or societies) controlled or owned by the State Government :
Provided that if the State Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this Sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of local or other authorities or corporations (or societies);
(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall also exercise on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this Sub-section apply to on local or other authority or corporation, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to :
(a) recruitment and matters to recruitment to any concerningservice or post in connection with the affairs ofsuch local or other authority or corporation orsociety; and
(b) all service matters concerning a person other thana person referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)of this Section or a member, person or civilianreferred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) ofSection (14) appointed to any service or post inconnection with the affairs of such local or otherauthority or corporation or society and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs,
(4) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall not extend to or be exercisable in relation to, any matter in relation to which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends or is exercisable.'
The above quoted provision makes it abundantly clear that the Administrative Tribunal for the State has all the jurisdiction, powers and authority to consider in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Civil Service of the State or to any Civil posts under the State. Rider to that jurisdiction is as provided in above quoted Sub-section (1) i.e. the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and also under Section 2(b) i.e. matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, if the petitioners grievance is only with respect to the retrenchment and they are coming within the definitions of 'Workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the dispute qualifies to the term 'industrial dispute' as defined in Section 2(k) of the said Act, therefore, proper forum for the petitioner would be the Industrial Tribunal and if they claim for regularisation in service while challenging to the order of retrenchment, then it is the State Administrative Tribunal which has got the jurisdiction in view of the provision in Section 15 of the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal Act, In either event, forums under law have been provided to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, since the matter has been heard at length, and the State Government has not disputed regarding making declaration for rehabilitation assistance to displaced persons and circulars having been issued by the State Government in Finance Department providing criteria, guidelines and instructions relating to regularisation of service of N.M.Rs, therefore, this writ application is disposed of with the following directions :
(i) The order of retrenchment of the petitioners shall remain suspended or a further period of six weeks.
(ii) The State Government shall constitute a Committee, if not already constituted, to consider the matter relating to rehabilitation of displaced persons by providing temporary/ permanent job, as the case may be,
(iii) The writ petitioners, if they are so advised, shall present their written application with all relevant informations and bio-datas before the authority under whom they are serving within a period of ten days, clearly stating about their eligibility under the scheme, duration of their employment as N.M.Rs. and the claim for continuance as N.M.R. or for regularisation, in service, as the case may be. Such applications be processed by the concerned officers/authorities within a period of four days from the date of its filing and to forward that to Committee through proper channel and all concerned officers and authorities must see to it that the application with relevant observations/recommendations reaches the Committee (as noted in sub-paragraph (ii)), within a period of three weeks, from the date of this judgment.
(iv) The Committee shall consider such applications in accordance with law and the scheme of the Government and to pass such orders relating to employment, be it temporary or permanent or of any other nature and the duration thereof in the event of temporary or otherwise. In that respect the Committee shall keep in mind the provision in I.D. Act and Administrative rules/regulations besides the scheme of the Government relating to rehabilitation scheme or otherwise.
(v) The Committee shall give its decision within one week from the date of receipt of the application with the observations/ recommendations of the authorities and thereafter, the competent authority/the State Government shall take a decision in the matter of employment or otherwise, as noted above, before expiry of the period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.
(vi) The above directions shall appropriately be applied to the persons who are not coming within the category of 'displaced persons' but are working as N. M. Rs for a period of over five years by the date of impugned order of retrenchment and to consider whether they can be provided with permanent or temporary employment or can be continued as N.M.Rs.
(vii) The concerned authorities and the State Government shall be free to take any decision in the above matter but consistent with the provision of Law/Rules/Regulations and the scheme of the Government as well as the welfare of the people.
(viii) Any person aggrieved by that order may approach the appropriate forum be it Industrial Tribunal or the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, as the case may be, if such forums have jurisdiction to decide the issues and consider their grievance.
(ix) It is further made clear that if the State Government or the Officers working under it, shall not be able to discharge the duties relating to the aforesaid processing and consideration of the applications and relating to passing of appropriate orders within the aforesaid period of six weeks, then they may take their own time but until taking decision they shall allow the impugned order of retrenchment to remain suspended, Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate and effective steps as early as possible.
9. For the purpose of proper implementations of the aforesaid directions and observations and to avoid any delay in that respect, the Government counsel be immediately granted a free copy of this order in course of the day the judgment was pronounced.
All the writ applications are disposed of accordingly.