Partly allowed

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors. v. Tapeshwar Das

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2018LPA/148/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the six-day delay in filing the appeal. It rejected the appellants' challenge to the direction for payment of back wages to the legal heirs of a deceased employee, whose termination order had been quashed. The Court reduced the awarded costs from the original amount to Rs. 50,000, finding this sufficient for the respondents' legal struggle. The appeal was disposed of in the

What did the court decide?

Costs reduced to Rs. 50,000; Registry to remit remaining sum to appellants. Writ petition's substantive orders remain.

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 148 of 2017

¶4

¶5

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Dhanbad

¶6

General Manager, Kusunda Area, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad

¶7

Project Officer, M/s BCCL, Gonudih Colliery, Kusunda, Dhanbad

¶8

------Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Tapeshwar Das

¶11

Vijay Das

¶12

Phul Kumari

¶13

Damyanti Kumari ----Respondents ----

¶14

CORAM: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants: M/s Anoop Kr. Mehta, Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Sachin Mahto, Advocates

¶17

¶18

Order No. 13/ Dated: 04.09.2018

¶19

There is delay of 06 days in preferring the appeal.

¶20

On going through the application (I.A. No. 6644/2017) for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within time. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal.

¶21

The appellant before us are Bharat Coking Coal Limited and two of its Officers. They have been unsuccessful in defending their stand in not paying salary to a deceased employee whose service they had terminated with effect from 14^th December 1995. The order of termination was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 483 of 1996. The employee had passed away during pendency of that writ petition on 02.04.2000. His widow, who is the respondent / writ petitioner in this proceeding had prosecuted the writ petition successfully and the order of termination was quashed. We are apprised that his widow also passed away on 17.01.2017.

¶22

This appeal arises out of another writ petition instituted by the widow of the deceased employee primarily praying for back wages for the period her deceased husband had remained without employment on termination. As we have already observed, that order of termination was subsequently quashed. This writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 1763 of 2008) had been allowed by the learned First Court with the following directions:-

¶23

“ 6. The arguments of learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL is not well founded. There cannot be presumptions for not making the legally payable dues to a widow. A widow cannot be harassed for payment of legally admitted dues of her husband. It transpires that the termination order was quashed as back as on 22.09.2003. The present petitioner made representation

¶24

¶25

to the respondents on 17.12.2003 and, thereafter, on several date i.e. 25.02.2004 and other dates. The respondents-BCCL slept over the matter for 13 long years and have not taken any steps for making payment to the widow, the benefits accrued to her on account of death of her husband and as of quashing of the termination order.

¶26

7. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay entire legally admitted dues of petitioner’s husband along with arrears of salary amounting to Rs.2,89,158.61 i.e. for the period from 16.12.1995 to 16.12.1999 as it is apparent from the records that the respondents-BCCL did not challenge the order dated 22.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 483 of 1996 and C.W.J.C. No. 1003 of 1996 and as such the order attained finality. No further steps were taken by the respondents-BCCL after the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the year 2003. Thirteen long years have elapsed since the date of order. This is a glaring example in which a widow has been unnecessarily harassed at the hands of the respondents-BCCL for getting legally admitted dues of her late husband.

¶27

8. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court cannot shut its eyes and be a mute spectator and as such, this Court directs the respondent no.1-Chairmancum-Managing Director, BCCL to make additional payment of Rs.1lac. for harassing a widow for 13 long years. The respondents are further directed to release all the dues forthwith along with statutory interest @ 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order”.

¶28

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the BCCL has primarily assailed that part of the order of the learned First Court by which costs have been imposed. At present, the judgment of the learned First Court is being defended by the legal heirs of the widow of the deceased employee. They were substituted by an order passed by a coordinate Bench on 19^th February 2018. Appellant’s case is that at no point of time before filing the writ petition in the year 2008, out of which this appeal arises, back wages was asked for. According to him, in the earlier judgment delivered on 22.09.2003, no direction was given for payment of back wages. His submission is that rationale for awarding costs by the learned First Court being harassment of the widow was not based on any material factor as the widow had never approached the Court for payment of back wages. So far as use of the expression ‘harassing’ by the learned First Court is concerned, Mr. Sinha wants it to give restrictive meaning. He contends that the question of harassing would have only arisen in the event the widow had asked for back wages and such demand was rejected.

¶29

But harassment in such restrictive sense is not the only reason for award of costs. The fact that the widow of the deceased employee had to approach the Court and prosecute the matter itself implies that she had to invest time, money and efforts, cumulative effect of which would be harassment only. Moreover since the respondent / writ petitioner had ultimately succeeded in both the writ petitions, they were otherwise entitled to costs.

¶30

We are apprised by the respondents’ counsel that a sum of Rs. 2,89,158.61 is due to the respondent / writ petitioner. We do not find any reason to interfere with

¶31

¶32

the order of the learned First Court by which dues have been directed to be released along with interest @ 6% per annum. So far as costs is concerned, we are of the opinion that because of the very fact that the respondents or their predecessor had to approach the Court for enforcing legitimate right, Rs.50,000/- as costs would be sufficient and we reduce the quantum of costs awarded accordingly. Let the Registry remit Rs.50,000/- to the respondents through account payee cheque within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. Rest of the sum deposited shall be remitted to the appellant / BCCL.

¶33

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to cost (s).

¶34

( Aniruddha Bose, C.J.)

¶35

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶36

Ranjeet/AKM

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors. v. Tapeshwar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors. v. Tapeshwar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Foundry Of India Through Its Partner Smt Rashmi Arya Vs Hindustan Copper Limited

Karan Gope and Ors. Vs Shri Akhilesh Sinha and Anr.

Keshwar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary Deptt of Human Resources Development And Ors.

Bhairav Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Commissioner of Income Tax Jam Vs Prem Dhar Pandey