Authority: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack

Order Date: 05‑11‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner – Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, Bhadrak; opposite parties – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and others (including the deceased workman’s legal representatives Hema Devi, Deepak Kumar, Raj Nandini Kumari, Nikita Kumari).
  • Nature of proceeding: Review application (RVWPET No.399 of 2023) filed under Order XLVII Rules 1‑2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the Division Bench judgment dated 29‑08‑2023 in W.P.(C) No.21154 of 2023.
  • Background: The original writ petition challenged the Labour Court award dated 16‑03‑2023 (Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.63 of 2021) which reinstated a workman terminated in 1986 and granted back‑wages at 50 % of arrears. The petitioner‑employer later entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 06‑07‑2017, leading to appointment of interim resolution professional K.G. Somani and approval of a resolution plan on 30‑01‑2020, with Sterlite Power Transmission Limited (SPTL) as the successful resolution applicant. The resolution plan, approved by NCLT and affirmed by NCLAT and the Supreme Court (27‑09‑2021), expressly extinguished all claims not included in the plan, including the workman’s dues.
  • Procedural history: Notices issued on 16‑05‑2024; substitution of opposite party 2 on 03‑09‑2024 after the workman’s death; multiple listings (08‑12‑2025, 13‑02‑2026, 20‑03‑2026, 13‑10‑2026) where opposite party 2 did not appear. Counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Lalitendu Mishra and Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya) submitted extensive arguments, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. (2021 SCC Online SC 313), Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005 4 SCC 741), and various High Court precedents on review jurisdiction.
  • Legal issues considered:

1. Whether the petitioner demonstrated a “new and important matter or evidence” or a “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” as required under Order XLVII.

2. Whether the industrial award and the workman’s claim, predating the CIRP, are barred by the approved IBC resolution plan.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court pronouncements on the limited scope of review (e.g., Kamlesh Verma, Sow Chandra Kante, Thungabhadra Industries).

4. Whether the petitioner’s reliance on the resolution plan’s clause 3(f)(i) and on the Ghanashyam Mishra judgment constitutes a sufficient ground for review.

  • Court’s reasoning:
  • The Court reiterated the statutory test for review – only a patent error, discovery of new material evidence, or “any other sufficient reason” qualifies.
  • The petitioner’s contentions merely reiterated arguments already rejected in the original writ petition and did not introduce new evidence.
  • The resolution plan, being a binding order under Section 31 of the IBC, extinguishes all pre‑CIRP claims not expressly admitted; the workman’s award falls within that category.
  • Citing multiple Supreme Court and High Court authorities, the Court held that a review cannot be used to re‑appreciate evidence or to substitute a different view of the law.
  • The petition failed to demonstrate any error “apparent on the face of the record” nor any material fact that was unknown or could not have been produced earlier.

Final Outcome

  • The review application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
  • No costs are awarded to either side.
  • The original award dated 16‑03‑2023 and the Division Bench judgment of 29‑08‑2023 remain in force.

Topics: Legal Review, Insolvency Resolution, Industrial Dispute