JUDGMENT
P.K. Mohanty, J.
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 Labour
Court. 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. The opp. party-Corporation has filed an affidavit in the present Civil Review application that the work-charged establishment has since been abolished with effect from 1973, whereas the three employees are still working as work-charged employees on the basis of the orders of the Court, bus the records relating to the employees are not available. In view of the affidavit that the records are not available, by order dated 18-4-2000, we directed the Secretary of the Corporation to indicate as to on what basis such an averment was made. Pursuant to the direction, Sri Surendra Mohaprtra, the Secretary of the Corporation, filed an affidavit on 22-9-2000 and in para-graph-4 thereof it has been stated that in the entire organisation of the opp. party-Corporation, three employees are still working on work-charged employees namely, (1) Kishore Chandra Pande, Khalasi, (2) Sri Akshaya Kumar Kanungo, Aminand (3) Fanindra Nath Mohanty, Pump helper. It has further been stated at paragraph-5 that the gross pay per month of a work-charged – employee is same for the different categories of employees engaged in the regular establishment and, therefore, the opp. party-Corporation has not maintained any separate record of the said three work-charged employees, who will be duly regularised as per the scheme for regularisation formulated by the Corporation, subject to allocation of funds by the State Government. It has further been reiterated at paragraph-6 of the affidadit that in view of this, the service particulars of the work-charged employees and the basis of their engagement in the work-charged establishment is not readily available.
4. 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 Corpora
tion. The plea of the Corporation that those three work-
charged employees are working in view of the orders of the
Labour Court and the order of this Court is not substantiated by
producing any order thereto inasmuch as the Secretary himself
has sworn the affidavit that no record is available to indicate
that they are continuing as such pursuant to any order of the
Court, If no record is available as to whether those three
employees are working in the work-charged establishment, it is
unfortunate as to how the Corporation could take the stand that
they are continuing by virtue of the order of the Court. This
in our opinion depict a very sad picture as to how the manner
in which the Corporation is managing its affairs and its
employees. In the circumstances, we have no option but to hold
that the stand taken by the Corporation that the work-charged
establishment stood abolished since 1973, is false and cannot be
accepted. Undisputedly, the petitioner before termination of his
engagement was working in the work-charged establishment. In
view of the specific stand of the opp. party-Corporation in their
counter filed in the writ application, this Court while disposing
of the writ application directed that the petitioner may be engaged
as an N.M.R. employes since there is no work-charged employee
continuing in the establishment. But, since it is now found that
three persons still continuing in the work-charged establishment,
the basic of the earlier order for engagement of the petitioner
as N.M.R. having failed, it has to be directed that the petitioner
should be taken in the work-charged establishment, be having
worked in the said establishment earlier to his termination which
having been held as illegal in the writ application, he is to be
reinstated as an N.M.R. employee.
5. In view of what we have observed earlier, since the earlier direction for engaing the petitioner as N.M.R. was on the basis of the specific stand that the work-charged establishment has been abolished since 1973, since now undisputedly three persons are still working in the work-charged establishment and the opp. party-Corporation have not justified or substantiated
their stand that they are continuing by virtue of the order of the Court, we are inclined to take the view that they are continuing on work-charged establishment by the employer-Corporation independent of any order. In such circumstances since we have already held in the writ application that the petitioner’s disengagement was not sustainable in law, he should be taken back as a work-charged employee in the Corporation.
6. In the result, the Review Application is allowed and the judgment dated 18-8-1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 7874 of 1996 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be given a suitable engagement as a work-charged employee instead of N.M.R. employee from the date he has been taken as an N.M.R. employee in the Corporation.
P.C. Naik, J.
I agree.
7. Review application allowed.
