Disposed

Steel Auth.of India v. Industrial Court and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2016WP/813/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by SAIL and the deceased workman's family. It directed SAIL to pay final wages including maintenance allowance to the legal heirs under Section 65(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, while prohibiting the use of this specific concession as a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SAIL to consider and make payment of last wages inclusive of maintenance allowance to legal heirs within three months.

Steel Auth.of India Vs Industrial Court… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP No. 813 of 2003 • Steel Authority of India Limited Through : Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Industrial Court, Raipur 2. Labour Court, Durg
3. Mohd. Sharif, Ghandi Ghowk, Near Janata School Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents And WPS No. 1753 Of 2008
• Samsun Nisha, W/o Late Mohd. Sharif, aged about 46 years, R/o Nurani Chowk, Kharora, P.S. Kharora, Distt. Raipur (CG) ---- Petitioner Vs
• Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). ---- Respondent
For Petitioner (in WP No. 813 of 2003) : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate For Petitioner (in WPS No. 1753 Of 2008) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate
For Respondent (in WPS No. 1753 Of 2008): Shri Utsav Maheshvar,Advocate on behalf of Shri PR Patankar,Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶5

Order On Board

¶6

07/01/2016

¶7

WP No.813/2003 has been preferred by the Management of Steel Authority

¶8

¶9

of India Ltd. (for short 'the SAIL') challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court on 28-8-02 and that of the labour Court passed on 23-11-89 allowing the claim of respondent No.3 workman Shri Mohd. Sharif for his reinstatement in the services without backwages.

¶10

WPS 1753/2008 has been preferred by the legal heirs of the said Mohd. Sharif seeking payment of the benefit admissible to Mohd. Sharif during his lifetime under the provisions contained in Section 65 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960').

¶11

Shri Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the SAIL would submit that although the workman was not entitled for any benefit in view of his conduct of admitting the entire guilt when the charge-sheet was served upon him, yet as a good gesture and to help out the legal heirs of the deceased workman, they are ready to pay the last wages drawn inclusive of maintenance allowance in terms of the Section 65 (3) of the Act, 1960. He would submit that this concession may not be cited as precedent against the SAIL.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed of with direction that the SAIL shall consider and make payment of the last wages drawn inclusive of maintenance allowance in terms of Section 65 (3) of the Act, 1960 to the legal heirs of respondent No.3, who happen to be the petitioners in WPS 1753/2008, at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from today. However, the concession made by the SAIL shall not be cited or used as precedent against SAIL in any other case.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶15

ashu

Steel Auth.of India v. Industrial Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Auth.of India v. Industrial Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mission Higher Secondary School Vs Union Of India

Amarnath Agrawal Vs S.k.gupta And Ors.

Beniram Sahu Vs Birendra Kumar Thakur

Smt. Samsun Nisha Vs Managing Directror Steel Auth. of Ind.

Gajanand Shrivastava Vs Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur

Krishna Narayan Pandey Vs Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur