JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Petitioner has sought for review of the judgment delivered on 13.12.2004 in W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004 and W.P. (C) No. 5736 of 2004 relating to mode of payment of wages by cash. The Opp. Party members s.p also the intervener oppose to the application for review.
2. It may be noted in substance that, petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004 to quash the instruction of the Regional Officer of the Food Corporation of India, i.e. communication dated 5.2.2004 relating to payment of wages to the departmental/DPS workers only by cheque. Petitioner also filed W.P. (C) No. 5736 of 2004 with the prayer to quash the communication dated 30.2.2004 of the Deputy Manager (IR) of the Office of the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bhubaneswar and the decision of the District Manager, Orissa Region taken on 18.4.2004 to disburse the payment of wages/salary to the labourers ab’ove Rs. 1600/- through cheque. Both the Writ Applications were/heard analogously and disposed of by common judgment on 13.1/2.2004 by Hon’ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, J. (as His Lordship then was) with Hon’ble Shri A.K. Parichha, J. Since Hon’ble Shri A.K. Patnaik, J. on his promotion as the Chief Justice is no more available, therefore, as per the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, this matter was listed before us since Hon’ble Shri A.K. Parichha, J. is a member of this Division Bench.
3. Insistence of the petitioner for payment of wages/salary in cash instead of by cheque was resisted by the Opp. Party members so also some workmen contesting the case as interveners. As it appears from the judgment of the Division Bench, on consideration of the fact involved legal provisions in Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the sisterly legislations and precedent from the Apex Court, the Division Bench issued the Writ of mandamus in conformity with the provision in Section 6 read with Section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act. Operative part of the judgment reads as hereunder:
For the aforesaid reasons, we issue a mandamus on the Food Corporation of India to pay to its departmental and DPS workers wages averaging less than sixteen hundred rupees a month and the minimum wages in cash except where such worker gives a written authorization to pay him in cheque or to credit the wages in his bank account, but we are not inclined to issue any mandamus to the said Corporation to pay wages averaging sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage in cash and instead, we leave it open to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute that such wages of sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage should also be paid in cash and not by cheque.
4. Referring to affidavit dated 5.8.2005 of Sri Pabitra Mohan Behera and Annexure-1 annexed to that affidavit petitioner seeks for review of the aforesaid direction on the ground that inadvertently that aspect was not dealt with in the judgment. In that respect paragraphs 3 & 4 of the review application reads as hereunder:
3. That this aspect of the matter because inadvertently has not been dealt with in judgment, the Opp. Parties has started taking steps for payment for wages to the workers concerned, in cash if the wages of the worker is less the Rs. 1600/- and in other cases is to be paid by cheques. Unless, this aspect of the matter is clarified by the Hon’ble Court taking note of affidavit dated 5.8.2004, multifarious complications shall arise which may give rise to prolong litigations.
4. That the very issue involved in the Writ Application being the mode of payment and the same having been directed to be dealt with by the Industrial adjudication process, and keeping in view the difficulties indicated in operating the Bank Accounts by illiterate workers till the finalization of the industrial adjudication, the mode of payment followed by Opp. Parties prior to Jan, 2004 is need to be maintained.
5. In the above context, even after perusal of the affidavit dated 5.8.2004 of Pabitra Mohan Behera and Annexure-1 annexed to that affidavit, we find no consequential change in the position of law which was discussed in the impugned judgment so as to modify the above noted direction of the Division Bench. Therefore, the review petition does not merit consideration being not coming within the scope of review as per the provision of law in Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. In course of hearing without pressing much on the aforesaid aspect, petitioner sought for review of the above quoted direction in the judgment on the ground of Circular No. 07/2005 dated 7th July 2005 issued by the Deputy General Manager (IRL). That Circular has been appended in Misc. Case No. 92 of 2005. In that Circular instruction was issued to departmental and direct payment system workers in respect of actual wages/salary or total earning per month by cash up to Rs. 10,000/- with the rider that such instruction would not apply to those workers or depots covered and guided by the direction of the Court, if any. In their counter to that Misc. Case the Opp. Party members stated that the above noted circular has been superceded by Circular No. 09/2005 dated 22nd August 2005. That contention is partially true inasmuch as in Paragraph-1 of Circular No. 09/2005 it has been stated as follows :
It has been decided that wherever regions are already disbursing payment through cheques irrespective of the amount, the same should not be disturbed and the wages shall be continued to be disbursed through cheques only, in such cases. However, wherever any workman expresses any specific problem/requests for disbursement of wages through cash, the same may be considered by the Disbursing Officer concerned, in the light of Circular No. 7/2005.
7. On perusal of Circular No. 09/2005, we find that opp. Party members still insist for payment of salary/wages by cheque which makes it discretionary on the part of the drawing & Disbursing Officer to consider the difficulties of individual workers in respect of the mode of payment and in such cases to invoke instruction in Circular No. 7/2005. These are the facts which were not in existence when the judgment was delivered on 13.12.2004. Therefore, such subsequent development that too after disposal of the Writ Petition cannot constitute good ground for review of the judgment on that score.
For the reasons indicated above, the application for review is dismissed.
A.K. Parichha, J.
8. I agree.