Dismissed

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Rakesh Macwan v. Binod Kumar Mishra and Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2017LPA/106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing an appeal against a Single Judge order refusing stay, the High Court held that workmen are entitled to consequential benefits declared in a Supreme Court affirmed order. The rejection of a separate contempt petition does not bar the relief.

What did the court decide?

No stay of the Labour Court order directing the payment of wages and benefits to the workmen.

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A No. 106 of 2017 With I.A. No. 1992 of 2017

¶4

M/s. Jardine Henderson Limited .... … Appellant Versus

¶5

Binod Kumar Mishra 2. Swarn Singh 3. Md. Mazid 4. Md. Harun 5. S.P. Singh

¶6

Rekha Rani Sinha. .... … Respondents -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK ------For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Sr. Advocate. --------

¶7

03/ 12.04.2017 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P(L) No. 835 of 2016, whereby, the said writ application has been admitted by the learned Single Judge. However, the prayer for stay of the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 29 of 2010 and analogous cases, has been declined by the learned Single Judge, aggrieved whereby, the present LPA has been preferred.

¶9

The aforesaid order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 29 of 2010 and analogous cases, has been brought on record as Annexure-3, which shows that by the said order, the appellant M/s. Jardine Henderson Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, (herein after referred to as the 'Company'), have been directed to pay all the due wages, allowances and other monetary benefits, which included increment and other benefits arising due to the pay revision from time to time, within 60 days from passing of the order, to all the 61 applicants of those cases, on the basis of same principle / formula upon which the Company had calculated and paid the dues of 30 workmen of Cont. Case No. 811 of 2003, subject to the modification of pay revision etc., and the period of such computation of the calculation was directed be made from the date of retrenchment, i.e., 13.01.1988 till (a) the date of death of workmen or, (b) the

¶10

¶11

date of superannuation of workmen or, (c) the date of disposal of this case, whichever may be earlier, with interest @ 12% p.a from the due date. The appellant Company was also directed to make the payment of lump sum cost of litigation @ Rs. 2000 per workman. It is against this order that the appellant Company had preferred W.P (L) No. 835 of 2016, which was admitted by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 8.2.2017. However, as stated earlier, the prayer for stay of the impugned order was refused, by which the appellant Company is aggrieved.

¶12

The facts of this case, as has come in an earlier round of litigation before this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 638 of 2007 disposed of on 17.02.2009, are as follows;-

¶13

a) The Company had preferred an application to appropriate Government, seeking permission for retrenchment of the workmen under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Much time was taken by the sanctioning authority and keeping in mind deeming provision, the permission for retrenchment was presumed to have been given to the management.

¶14

b) Being aggrieved by the order of retrenchment which was brought into effect on various dates and one of such date was 15^th December, 1987, an Industrial Dispute was raised by the workmen and a Reference Case No.5 of 1988 was referred to the concerned Industrial Tribunal wherein an order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 25^th November, 1993, and the Reference Case was dismissed and 'deemed permission' for retrenchment was held as valid.

¶15

c) Thereafter, the aggrieved workmen preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994(R) under Articles 226 &227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶16

d) That before the order was passed by this Court, a full and final amicable settlement was arrived at between 71 workmen and the management, out of total 101 workmen. Counter affidavit was filed, but this fact was not brought to the notice to this Court while deciding C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 ( R) by order dated 28.3.2002. e) In the aforesaid writ application C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994(R), it was decided that deemed permission for retrenchment under 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, upheld by the Industrial Tribunal was wrong. There was mistaken calculation of 60 days, and therefore, retrenchment was held to be illegal. Consequently, award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed and final direction was given as under:-

¶17

“ All the 101 ( one hundred one) workmen in question will entitled for consequential benefits including monetary benefit to which they are entitled under the law.

¶18

¶19

The respondent management is directed accordingly.”

¶20

Against the aforesaid order passed on 23.8.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994(R), Letters Patent Appeal was preferred which was dismissed and SLP was also preferred in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed. As such the said order dated 23.08.2002 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 ( R) attained its finality.

¶21

The respondents before us are some of the workmen amongst those 71 workmen with whom there was earlier a final settlement with the management, but these respondents were not given the benefits that were given to the other 30 workmen with whom final settlement was not reached by the management. However, since this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994, clearly directed that all the 101 workmen in question shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, these respondents were certainly entitled to all consequential benefits, the decision of this Court having been affirmed up to the Supreme Court of India. There appears to be no occasion to the appellant Company to challenge the entitlements of those workmen again and again which is being done by the Company.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon us that some of the workmen out of 71 workmen, with whom there was earlier a final settlement with the management, had filed Cont. Case (Civil) No. 638 of 2007 in this Court for non-compliance of order dated 28.3.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 ( R), which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.02.2009 as contained in Annexure-1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that these respondents were also the petitioners in the said contempt case, and since the contempt case filed by these respondents has been dismissed, these respondents are not entitled to the consequential benefits which has been wrongly given to them by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, in another round of litigation brought by these respondents. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that a good case for staying the impugned order has been made out, but the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in law, in refusing the stay of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent workmen on the other hand, opposed the prayer and has submitted that the entitlement of these workmen as decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1998 ( R), has been upheld up to the Supreme Court of India, and there is no question of depriving the respondent workmen from the same, simply for the reason that the contempt case filed

¶23

¶24

before this Court could not find favour by this Court.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides, we do not see any valid reason for interfering with the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(L) No. 835 of 2016, refusing to stay the order passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, whereby the Labour Court, Dhanbad has only ordered for giving those consequential benefits to the respondent workmen, for which they were held entitled to, in the order dated 23.08.2002 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994 ( R), which attained its finality, upon being affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶26

We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine .

¶27

Consequently, I.A. No. 1992 of 2017, filed for stay of the Execution case in the Court below, also stands dismissed.

¶28

P.K.S/Anjali

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Rakesh Macwan v. Binod Kumar Mishra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Rakesh Macwan v. Binod Kumar Mishra 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

Nav Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Manjesh Jha Vs Mrs Kanchan Jha

Srikant Mallick Vs Smt Sukla Roy Mallick

The Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors. Vs Smt Anita Kumari Sinha

Somnath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jalan Vs Smt Shital Devi Jalan