Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT185; 2010(I)OLR54
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. The petitioner-Narendra Nath Biswal was appointed as a contract casual labour and has been working as Time Keeper since 1984 with the IDCOL Cement Ltd. (as government company of the State of Orissa), has filed the present writ application with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to regularize his services as well as to grant him equal pay for equal work.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged as 'Time Keeper' in the mines of the erstwhile IDCOL Cement Ltd. (ICL), a Government of Orissa enterprises w.e.f. 15.7.1984 and w.e.f. 12.7.1988 since the Time Keeper-Shri R.K. Pattnaik superannuated and the post had fallen vacant, the petitioner though engaged through a labour contractor, was directed to perform the duty as a Time Keeper. Since then he has been working as Time Keeper. It was submitted that although various contract labourers who were junior to him were absorbed as regular employees by the opposite party-ICL, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 109(2010)CLT291
Indrajit Mahanty, J.1. In the present revision by the Order Dated 30.6.1998, the following question of law was framed.Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the transportation charges, which was separately charged, is liable to be taxed under the Act 2. Mr. Paikray, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was assessed under Section 12(8) of the O.S.T. Act for the years 1984-85 & on a finding that the Petitioner had adopted colourable devices to avoid tax liability on transportation charges collected by it enhancing the turn over thereon Rs. 1 lakh & recomputing the tax payable as well as levy of penalty thereon amounting to Rs. 52,080.3. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of assessment under Section 12(8) of the O.S.T. Act & the Appellate authority came to allow the appeal by applying the ratio of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranisati Mining Traders v. Sales Tax Officer 53 STC 322 & came to ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT923
M.M. Das, J.1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition seek quashing of the advertisement dated 14.7.2009 under Annexure-15 to the Writ Petition in which no seats in the B.Ed. course for the session 2009-2010 have been reserved for in service candidates. The Petitioners are teachers holding trained graduate posts, who have not acquired B.Ed. training qualification.2. Mr. Swain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the reservation of seats for in-service candidates in B.Ed. course for the past sessions 2006-2007, 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 were being made. He further submits that teachers who have been appointed by the management of various institutions, in the post of trained graduate teachers, have remained untrained & the law requires that unless they acquire B.Ed. qualification, their appointments cannot be approved nor they will be brought into the grant-in-aid fold. He, therefore, submits that since previously seats were reserved for in-service candidates for B.Ed. course, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010CriLJ559
S.C. Parija, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, in S. C. No. 59/99 (S.C. 351/99 G. D. C.), holding the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 302/341/ 34, I. P. C. and convicting them thereunder.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Kalicharan Sabat, orally reported to the O. I. C., Surada P. S. on 7-1-1999, at 7 p.m., that his son-in-law Gopalkrushna Sahu came to his house in village Gobindapur at 4 p.m. and offered him Rs. 25,000/- sent by his son from Surat, which he did not receive, as he was alone in the house. His son-in-law Gopalkrushna informed him that he had withdrawn Rs. 27,000/- in total on that date from Surada State Bank. Gopalkrushna left the house of the informant on his cycle carrying the bag towards his village Sorisabali. 15 to 20 minutes thereafter, Chitaranjan Sabat, the elder brother of the informant came running and informed the informant that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2010Ori32; 2009(II)OLR774
Sanju Panda, J.1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkota in Appeal No. 11 of 2009 dismissing the appeal.2. The opposite party-Bank filed O.A. No. 187 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Orissa for recovery of loan amount advanced to the petitioner No. 1-Company. In the said proceeding, the present petitioners filed Misc. Application Nos. 566 and 567 of 2008 raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack to adjudicate the claims in O.A. No. 187 of 2008 in view of an arbitration clause in Clause-35 of the Loan Agreement to refer the claims for arbitration as per Section 8(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack without considering the matter in its proper perspective, by its order dated 20.1.2009 rejected the applications holding that it had jurisdiction to proceed with O.A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2009(II)OLR839
B.K. Patel, J.1. In this writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the award dated 18.12.1999 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 210 of 1993 holding that the termination of service of opposite party No. 2-workman by the petitioner is neither legal nor justified and that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to be reinstated in service.2. The award was passed in response to the following reference received from the state Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'):Whether the termination of service of Sri Ananta Charan Routray, Testing-ih-charge by the management of M/s. H.M. Electricals, Jagatpur, Cuttack with effect from 1.4.1991 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Labour Court opposite party No. 2-workman ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR287
L. Mohapatra, J.1. The State of Orissa and its functionaries are the petitioners before this Court questioning the legality of the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 204 of 2001.2. The opposite party, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had filed three Original Applications vide O.A. No. 204 of 2001, O.A. No. 2274 of 2000 and O.A. No. 229 of 2006. All the three Original Applications were disposed of by a common order impugned before us but this writ application is directed against the order passed in O.A. No. 204 of 2001. The opposite party was appointed as a Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit in the scale of pay of Rs. 840-1345/- in the district of Phulbani. The order of appointment was issued by the Collector & District Magistral, Phulbani. Later the service of the opposite party was regularised. The Planning and Coordination Department issued a letter to the A.G. (A & E) Orissa intimating therein that 13 posts of Junio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR16
ORDER1. Heard Sri B. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.A. Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order vide Annexure-6 or to assess the value of the vehicle by the opposite party No. 3 in his presence and to deliver the vehicle on depositing cost as assessed.3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-15-D-1955 by availing loan from SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 26.9.2005 with one Sayed Roshan, Son of Sayed Papa having transport business to manage the vehicle and paid Rs. 70,000/-in advance. It was an understanding that Sayed Roshan will pay Rs. 5,000/-per month to the petitioner and on 26.9.2005 as per the agreement Sayed Roshan took possession of the vehicle and managed the same. As per the agreement the said Sayed was responsible for any acciden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT901
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The Judgment & order of conviction dated 12th September, 1997 passed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur convicting the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life in S.T. Case No. 34/7 of 1997 is assailed in this Criminal Appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 5th April, 1996 at about 2 A.M. Rabi Murmu (P.W.12) reported orally at Jajpur P.S. that on 4th April, 1996 at about 10.30 P.M. while he was taking dinner in his house, he saw the Appellant along with one Jukudu Munda & Ugresen Munda drinking 'Handia' (country liquor) together. Thereafter Ugresen Munda left the place & went to the house of P.W.3. After his departure the Appellant & Jukudu Munda discussed with each other about an incident which took place about ten years back. It was alleged that Ugresen Munda practiced black magic & caused some harm to the Appellant & Jukudu Munda. They decided to finish Ugresen Munda so that he will not cause further damage t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT896
A.S. Naidu, J.1. Appellant & Dandapani Naik faced trial for commission of offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34, IPC & their father accused Prafulla Naik faced trial for commission of offence under Section 302, read with Section 149, IPC for intentionally causing the death of Bidesi Naik in futherance of their common intention in S.T. Case No. 223/39/332 of 1995/92 of the Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant (Chakrapani) under Section 302, IPC & sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. Dandapani (accused) was found guilty of the offence under Section 324, IPC & was convicted to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. However, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to substantiate their case against accused Prafulla & acquitted him. The order of conviction & sentence passed against Dandapani has not been assailed & has attained its finality. The present appeal is thus confined only to...
Tag this Judgment!