Partly allowed

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery of M S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Dal Singhar Kohar

Jharkhand HC19 Aug 2019WPC/5421/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court exercised writ jurisdiction to modify a Labour Court order quantifying back wages of a wrongly retired workman. The Court held that Section 33-C(2) is an executing jurisdiction and directed payment of Rs.1 lakh instead of Rs.1,57,322 from the award date to the date of reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.1,00,000, representing wages from the date of award to reinstatement, via cheque in the next Lok Adalat.

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

W.P. (L) No.5421 of 2008

¶2

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Project Officer/Agent, 20/21 Pits Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Murulidih, Via-Mahuda, P.S. Mahuda, DistrictDhanbad, through Sri Sanjay Khare ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Dal Singhar Kohar, resident of 20/21 Pits Colliery of M/s BCCL, P.O. Murulidih, Mahuda, Dhanbad …… Respondent

¶5

----- For the Petitioner :Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent :Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Adv.

¶6

-----

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

By Court

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No.16/2007 whereby the petition filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed by directing the management to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,322/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Two) as wages to the workman.

¶12

Respondent-workman was appointed as Minor/ Loader on 06.05.1971 at Amlabad Coal Co. Ltd. i.e. erstwhile owner. At the time of appointment, his date of birth in statutory Form B register was recorded as 01.07.1948 and in CMPF record also, same date of birth was mentioned.

¶13

It appears that after nationalization, service of the respondentworkman has been taken by the present petitioner i.e. BCCL w.e.f. 01.05.1974 and in the record maintained by the BCCL authority also the date of birth has been recorded as 01.07.1948. In July, 1996, respondent-workman has been transferred to Murulidih Colliery from Amlabad Colliery where he joined on 03.08.1976. At this new place, his date of birth has been recorded as 44 years on 13.12.1985, which means date of birth as 31.12.1951. On the basis of this date of birth, the respondent-workman has retired from the service w.e.f. 31.12.2001. This forceful retirement has been disputed by raising industrial dispute which has been referred vide Reference No.16/98.

¶14

The terms of reference is as under:

¶15

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Mohuda Area No.II of M/s BCCL P.O. Mahuda, Dist. Dhanbad in refusing to accept the date of birth of Sh. Dalsingar Kohar, Miner/Loader as in the records of Amlabad Colliery (Place of initial appointment) is

¶16

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

¶17

The Award has been answered in favour of the workman in

¶18

following terms:

¶19

“The action of the General Manager, Mohuda Area No.II of M/s BCCL, P.O., Mohuda, Dist. Dhanbad in refusing to accept the date of Sh. Dalsingar Kahar, Miner/Loader as in the records of Amlabad Colliery (place of initial appointment) is not justified. Consequently, the date of birth should be consided as 1.7.48.”

¶20

This award, which has been challenged by the management, has been upheld up to the Apex Court. Thus above award has become final. It further appears that thereafter petitioner has been taken into service w.e.f. 14.09.2006 and he worked till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2008 and got wages for those periods also. Respondent-workman has moved the Labour Court under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for the period from 01.01.2002 to 14.09.2006 i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. His application has been registered as M.J. Case No.16/2007. Accepting the claim of the workman, calculation has been made, which has been quantified as Rs.1,57,322/-.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of Labour Court dated 12.05.2008 on the ground that the Labour Court has travelled beyond the award as no back wages has been awarded to the respondent-workman, but still the back wages has been granted.

¶22

Submission has been advanced that the concerned workman is entitled to get wages w.e.f. 07.10.2004 as the award has been pronounced on 18.06.2004 and the same has been published on 07.07.2004 and the award itself stipulates three months time for implementation which expires on 07.10.2004.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the award has been upheld by the Apex Court. Once it has been held that that respondent-workman has wrongly been retired, he became entitle for salary for the idle period.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Award is not in dispute. Concerned workman has been reinstated in service w.e.f. 14.09.2006 and has worked till the date of superannuation. The salary for the period from 01.01.2002 to

¶26

14.09.2006 i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement is in dispute.

¶27

It is trite that Labour Court under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is supposed to quantify the entitlement. He cannot adjudicate upon the entitlement. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 (C) (2) is akin to the Executing Court.

¶28

Admittedly in the present case, no back wages has been awarded. Back wages is not automatic. It is special relief to be granted especially by the concerned Tribunal or Authority.

¶29

In view of above discussion, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for wages w.e.f date of Award i.e. 18.06.2004 till the date of reinstatement. To resolve the dispute finally and to avoid further litigation, the amount is quantified to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) considering the entire factual matrix.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.05.2008 is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶31

The petitioner-employer is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶32

Petitioner is directed to come with a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) drawn in the name of respondent-workman and to be presented in the next Lok Adalat which is going to be held in September, 2019 in the premises of High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶33

Respondent-workman is also directed to appear on above date to receive the amount.

¶34

With above observation and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶36

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶37

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The Day of 19^th of August, 2019 Shahid/N.A.F.R.

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery of M S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Dal Singhar Kohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Project Officer/ AGENT,20/21 Pits Colliery of M S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Dal Singhar Kohar

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

Ram Charitra Singh Vs Employers in Relation to the M

B.S.F.D.C. Vs P.O.Labour Court Ranchi And Ors.

Palamau Pramandal Khan Mazdoor Sangh Through Its President Satya Pal Varma Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment Through Its Secretary And Ors.

Surendra Ghatwar Vs Management of M/S Bokaro Steel

Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Senior Manager Legal John Tapan Kongari Vs Rajendra Paswan, Staff NO.2958

The Employers In Relation To The Management Of Damodar Valley Corporation Vs Their Workmen Fulchand Saw