Allowed

Employer In Relation To The Management Of Uco Bank Through Asst General Manager v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2018WPC/2146/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a writ petition challenging an industrial tribunal award that directed absorption and regularization of workmen. The High Court of Jharkhand held the award cryptic and unreasoned for lacking factual adjudication and quashed it, remanding the matter for a fresh award without further evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 14.10.2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the CGIT to pass a fresh award discussing the facts on record.

Employer In Relation To The Management Of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(L) No.-2146 of 2016

¶4

Employer in relation to the Management of UCO Bank, Jharia Branch through Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Sainik Bazar, Ranchi, being R.J.Shankara, son of R.J. Janardhan

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

-V e r s u s-

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Dy. General Secretary, Jharkhand State UCO Bank Employees Union, Jharia Unit, Dhanbad

¶9

Rajesh Kumar Sarwan

¶10

Sri Ravindra Ram

¶11

Raju Modak

¶12

Smt. Pratima Devi

¶13

…. Respondents

¶14

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate For the State :- A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III For the Workmen :- Mr. S.K.Laik, Advocate

¶16

Order No.-06 Dated: 05.07.2018

¶17

1. It has been reported by the office that the notice issued to the respondent no.3 has been validly served.

¶18

2. The service of notice to the respondent no. 3 is thus complete.

¶19

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 14.10.2015 passed in Reference No. 46 of 2009 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (No.1), Dhanbad (in short “CGIT”), whereby the petitionermanagement has been directed to absorb the workmen being respondent nos. 4 to 6 first and regularise them within six months from the date of publication of the award as the respondent no. 3 has already been regularized by the petitioner-management during the conciliation proceeding.

¶20

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is a public sector Bank under whom the respondent nos. 3 to 6 are working on casual basis. On raising of the dispute by the workmen and the conciliation having failed, the Central Government through Ministry of Labour, vide order no. L-12012/41/2009 IR-(B-II) dated 03.08.2009 referred the dispute

¶21

¶22

under Section 10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by the CGIT. The said reference reads as under:

¶23

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Jharia Branch in denying regularization of Sri Ravindra Ram, Sri Raju Modak, Smt. Pratima Devi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sarwan and also not paying the wages as per scale laid down in the Desai/Sastry Award (Bipartite Settlement) in spite of working for more than 07 to 15 years approx.. are justified ? What relief these workmen are entitled to?”

¶24

5. It would be evident from the terms of the reference that the workmen (respondent nos. 3 to 6) claimed their regularization in the services of the petitioner-management as well as the wages as per the scale laid down in the Desai/Sastry Award (Bipartite Settlement) in view of the fact that they had been working under the petitionermanagement for more than 07 to 15 years.

¶25

6. The petitioner-management as well as the Union filed their respective written statements before the learned CGIT. On perusal of the impugned award dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT, it appears that the petitioner-management has been directed to absorb the concerned workmen first and to regularize them within six months from the date of publication of the award. The said award further reveals that no adjudication of the reference has been done by the Presiding Officer of the CGIT. In the impugned award, which runs in merely five paragraphs, the Presiding Officer, CGIT has merely observed that the concerned workmen have been working continuously and therefore, it seems that they have been working for more than 240 days in a year and after making the said observation, the petitionermanagement has been directed to absorb the concerned workmen first and to regularize them within a period of six months from the date of publication of the award.

¶26

7. In my opinion, the impugned award is bereft of any feature of an award. The reference made to the CGIT by the Central Government was required to be answered after discussing the facts laid before the CGIT by the respective parties and to apply the law over the same accordingly. The impugned award dated 14.10.2015 on the face of it, appears to be cryptic and unreasoned, disclosing no factual adjudication on the basis of which the petitioner-management could have been directed to absorb the concerned workmen and to regularize

¶27

¶28

them except the fact that the services of the respondent no. 3 Rajesh Kumar Sarwan) was said to be regularized by the petitionermanagement during the conciliation proceeding.

¶29

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned award dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (No.1), Dhanbad in Reference No. 46 of 2009, cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (No.1), Dhanbad for passing a fresh award after discussing the facts already placed on record providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that the parties shall not be allowed to lead any further evidence in the matter.

¶30

9. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation.

¶31

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶32

Ritesh

Employer In Relation To The Management Of Uco Bank Through Asst General Manager v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employer In Relation To The Management Of Uco Bank Through Asst General Manager v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Security and Intelligence Service India Limited through Tarun Kumar Sinha Vs State Bank of India through the Chief General Mnager

Jharkhand Stone Mineral Works Through Its Proprietor Md Tipu Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of Mines And Ors.

Nafisa Stone Works Through Its Proprietor Rahim Sheikh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of Mines And Ors.

Telco Workers Union through Its General Secretary Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Swarali Krishna Kondwilkar Vs Union of India through the Pr Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare

Ms Mecon Ltd. through Its General Manager Sri Tej Pratap Chopra Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Power