IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7374 OF 2008 Tripati Paik …. Petitioner Mr. Prasanna Kumar Rath, Advocate -versus- Lekhan Ramji Patel and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 06.07.2026 12. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 1st September, 2007 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.19 of 2007. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Workman submits that the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was dismissed vide order dated 1st September, 2007 (Annexure-2) by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore on the ground of limitation. Assailing the said order, the Workman has filed the present writ petition. 4. In the meantime, the Workman-Petitioner has died and has been substituted by his Widow, namely, Ambika Paik, and children. Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Jul-2026 15:03:07 Signature Not Verified 5. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1- Management, submits during pendency of the writ petition, the matter has been settled between the parties. The Management has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Workman towards full and final settlement of his (Workman’s) claim. A demand draft of Rs.50,000/-, drawn in favour of the widow of the Petitioner is prepared and received by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court today. 6. An attested photocopy of the said demand draft is filed before this Court and is taken on record. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Management that the demand draft, drawn in favour of the widow of the Petitioner, is towards full and final settlement of the claim by the Petitioner in the petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. He, however, submits that the demand draft is prepared as per the instructions of substituted Petitioners, which is not disputed by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 8. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) ms Judge Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER