Worker sacked in 1986 keeps 1999 award: Orissa HC rejects Ferro Alloys review over IBC plan
A division bench refused to review its 2023 ruling that a workman’s reinstatement and back wages award stood outside Ferro Alloys Corporation’s approved resolution plan, saying the company was rearguing points already decided.
A worker dismissed on 24 October 1986 won reinstatement and half his back wages in 1999. His employer, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, later went through insolvency and argued that the approved resolution plan had wiped out what it owed him. On 5 November 2026 the Orissa High Court refused to review its 2023 ruling against that argument.
The worker died while the review was pending, and his widow and three children were substituted as opposite party no. 2. Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo wrote the judgment for a division bench with Chief Justice Harish Tandon, who recorded his agreement.
A 1986 dismissal and a 1999 award
The Labour Court, in I.D. Case No. 60 of 1990, found the domestic enquiry report and the management’s orders of 21 October 1986 illegal. It held the termination from 24 October 1986 neither legal nor justified. The award is dated 17 February 1999.
The workman was to be reinstated. Given the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Labour Court said, back wages at 50 per cent would meet the ends of justice.
The management challenged the award in OJC No. 7286 of 1999. A division bench dismissed that writ on 11 December 2019. The company filed a review, RVWPET No. 2 of 2020, on 8 January 2020 and took no further step, so the order became final.
Insolvency came in between
The National Company Law Tribunal admitted the company to corporate insolvency resolution on 6 July 2017. A resolution professional invited claims. Sterlite Power Transmission Limited became the successful resolution applicant, and the NCLT Cuttack Bench approved its plan on 30 January 2020.
The NCLAT confirmed the approval, and the Supreme Court did the same by an order of 27 September 2021. Meanwhile the workman had asked the Labour Court to compute his dues under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
That application was I.D. Misc. Case No. 63 of 2021. The Labour Court decided it by an award of 16 March 2023, and the company challenged it in W.P.(C) No. 21154 of 2023.
What the first bench decided in 2023
The company argued that once the plan was approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all earlier dues ceased to exist. It cited Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company and Essar Steel. It also pointed to the plan’s clause writing off employee claims for any period before the plan effective date.
On 29 August 2023 a division bench dismissed the writ. It noted that the plan covered all dues except those of admitted workmen and employees. The workman’s entitlement arose from an award of 1999, long before the insolvency of July 2017.
The bench held the claim was not part of the plan and that no claim had been put forward after its approval. It said the question in Ghanashyam Mishra did not fit the facts, and that the company could itself have put the liability into the plan.
It called the company’s attempt an effort to circumvent an award already confirmed by the High Court. The workman was to be paid within thirty days, failing which the company owed 8 per cent a year in interest.
The review and the missing respondents
The review was filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 and Section 114 of the CPC. Notice went out on 16 May 2024. On 3 September 2024 the workman’s legal representatives were substituted.
No one appeared for them on 8 December 2025, 13 February 2026, 20 March 2026 or on 13 October 2026, when the review was heard and reserved. Because the other judge of the 2023 bench was unavailable, the review was heard by a bench that included Justice Sahoo alone from it.
The court framed the issue as
“whether the review petitioner has made out a case for review of the judgment dated 29.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No.21154 of 2023, as per the parameters of Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the C.P.C.” (para 5)
What the company said in review
Mr Lalitendu Mishra and Mr Saswat Kumar Acharya appeared for the company. They said the workman never lodged a claim with the resolution professional, and that clause 3(f)(i) of the plan settled all litigation liabilities for the earlier period as nil.
They argued that the 2023 bench had reached apparently mistaken findings. Grounds A to E in paragraph 33 of the review application, they said, showed findings of fact contrary to the record.
They relied on BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, on the Orissa High Court’s own ruling in Ferro Alloys Corporation v. State of Odisha and on Green View Tea and Industries v. Collector, Golaghat. The Additional Standing Counsel, Ms Biswabara Dash, appeared for the Labour Court.
Review is not an appeal in disguise
The bench set out the law on review. It quoted a Calcutta High Court division bench ruling in State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, delivered by the present Chief Justice, and the Supreme Court’s principles in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati.
The ones it applied include that a review is not an appeal in disguise, and that an error must be self-evident rather than found by reasoning. A mere possibility of two views is no ground. Evidence cannot be reappreciated, and a relief negatived in the main matter cannot be reargued.
The court also referred to Sunil Vasudeva v. Sundar Gupta and Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, which reiterate those principles.
How the bench answered each ground
The bench took the grounds one by one. Even if the 2023 judgment were wrong, it said, that would not make it reviewable. The arguments on Ghanashyam Mishra were considered and overruled then, and repeating them cannot reopen a decided matter.
Even if the company’s reading of that case were a possible view, two views are no ground for review. The bench had considered and followed Ghanashyam Mishra in its judgment.
The factual points were already examined in the challenge to the Labour Court award. Taking them up again, the court said, would be reappreciation of evidence that cannot be done even in an appeal. The legal grounds repeated what was argued and rejected in the writ.
The bench also read the passages the company cited from Netaji Cricket Club and held that those precedents were nowhere near the facts of this petition. A decision, it said, is authority only for what it decides on its facts.
Order
The court held that the grounds were not errors manifest in the judgment and did not undermine it. In its words, “We do not find any material error, manifest on the face of the judgment” (para 26).
The review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The 29 August 2023 judgment, which had directed payment within thirty days failing which interest at 8 per cent a year, was left undisturbed.