Dismissed

Sohrab Ali v. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC10 Dec 2018WPC/609/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a letter requiring the petitioner to file worker details was dismissed. The High Court held the impugned order had no infirmity, noting the petitioner failed to establish locus standi to represent the workers despite given opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit; liberty was granted to agitate the cause when requisite documents are possessed.

Sohrab Ali Vs the Bharat Coking Coal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(L) No.-609 of 2018

¶4

Sohrab Ali …Petitioner

¶5

-V e r s u s-

¶6

The Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad

¶7

The Chairman-cum-Managing Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad

¶8

The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, W.J. Area, Dhanbad 4. The Project Officer, Munidih Project, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, W.J. Area, PO & PS Putki (Munidih), District- Dhanbad

¶9

M/s Indu Project Limited, Zhengzhou Coal Mining Machinery (Group) Co. Ltd., Zhengzhou Design Research Institute of Coal Industry Co. Ltd. Lian Ning Xinfeng Mine Field Equipment Manufacture Co. Ltd., Hyderabad

¶10

The Union of India through its Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Shram Bhawan, New Delhi

¶11

…. Respondents

¶12

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravi Das, Advocate For the Res.-U.O.I. :- Ms. Leena Mukherjee, C.G.C. For the Res.- BCCL :- Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate

¶14

Order No.-05 Dated: 10.12.2018

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the letter no. 1/(Misc)/2017.E.4 dated 28/29.11.2017 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II whereby the petitioner was directed to file the list of 246 workers along with their letter of authorization by the given date on whose behalf he was appearing before the said authority raising the dispute. It has also been observed that if the petitioner fails to produce the same, it would be presumed that he has raised a fake dispute and the said grievance will come to an end.

¶16

Mr. A.K. Rashidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the General Secretary of ‘Rashtravadi Majdoor Union’, having its Central Office at Ekra, P.O.-Bansjoda, DistrictDhanbad. He raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II on behalf of 246 workers engaged by the contractor of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL)- M/s. Indu Project Ltd.-respondent no. 5 which was kept pending. Thereafter

¶17

¶18

the petitioner made a complaint before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad on 27.11.2017 that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II did not take any action on the alleged dispute raised by the petitioner vide letter dated 01.02.2016. In the meantime, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad-II hurriedly issued the impugned letter dated 28/29.11.2017 without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish its locus standi to represent the cause of 246 workers engaged by the contractor-respondent no. 5 (under BCCL in Munidih Colliery).

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned letter dated 28/29.11.2017, it appears that though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II, yet he could not establish his locus standi to represent the case of the said workers. The petitioner also could not file the list of workers as asked by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show his locus standi to represent the cause of said 246 workers. Thus, I see no infirmity in the impugned letter dated 28/29.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II.

¶20

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate the cause of 246 workers under the respondent no. 5 as and when he possesses all the requisite documents as asked by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-II in terms with the impugned letter dated 28/29.11.2017.

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Ritesh

Sohrab Ali v. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohrab Ali v. the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Ravindra Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawandham Mandir, Shri Digamba Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

N P Construction through Its Manager Ajit Kumar Singh Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kavita Devi Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited