Gopabandhu Moharana vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Perused the kind minutes of the Hon’ble Chief Justice at Flag-X assigning the matter to this Bench.

This petition has been filed for review of the order dated 9th July, 2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.149 of 2017.

Mr. Moharana, the review Petitioner appears in person and submits that in the Writ Appeal, this Court wrongly recorded that the Petitioner was initially appointed as an Apprentice. It is his submission that from the very beginning, he was appointed as a management trainee. Had this fact considered properly, the result of the Writ Appeal would have been different. He, therefore, prays for review of the order passed in the Writ Appeal.

Upon hearing Mr. Moharana, the review Petitioner and on perusal of the record, more particularly, the order sought to be reviewed, it appears that this Court in Writ Appeal observed as under;

“As it appears from the record, the appellant was originally appointed as Apprentice by order dated 20.12.1990 as per Apprentice Act. Clause 5 of the order dated 20.12.1990 is reproduced below:

"5. As per Apprentice Act, you have to execute an agreement with IDCO at the time of joining for such Apprentice training."

Aforesaid observation in the order passed in the Writ Appeal was not the basis to dismiss the same. It was only a recording of fact taking into consideration the recitals of Annexure-6 in the Writ Appeal. This Court only recorded Clause-5 of Annexure-6 and observed that the Petitioner was originally appointed as Apprentice by order dated 20th December, 1990. It further appears that in the order sought to be reviewed, this Court has taken into consideration the previous litigations and order passed therein. The previous orders passed by this Court in different litigations are the basis to come to a conclusion that the Writ Appeal did not merit consideration. It is also clear from the concluding paragraph of the order passed in the Writ Appeal, which is as under:

“The appellant has challenged the said order of 1990 in the year 2015. However, the appellant is claiming that he had earlier filed two writ petitions, L.e., O.J.C. No.9905 of 1999 and W.P.(C) No.3279 of 2002. Both the writ petitions of 1999 and 2002 were withdrawn on the same day with a liberty to file fresh writ petitions with better particulars. But, the same cannot give the appellant an unfettered right to file writ petition in the year 2015 challenging a cause of action of the year 1990. In our considered opinion if O.J.C. No.9905 of 1999 was pending, the appellant had no right to file another writ petition.

Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and there is no substance in the appeal.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.”

Thus, the Petitioner has not made out any case for review of the order passed in the Writ Appeal.

Accordingly, the RVWPET stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………………………….