Dismissed

Shashi Bhusan Das v. Central Coal Field Limited And O

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2019WPC/545/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking promotional benefits. The bench held that since the petitioner had already chosen the alternative forum of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act for the implementation of a settlement, he could not approach the High Court for the same grievance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Shashi Bhusan Das Vs Central Coal Field… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No.545 OF 2011

¶3

Shashi Bhusan Das S/0 Late Pratap Nayayan Das R/O At and P.O Sarubera P.S Mandu(Kuju O.P) Dist. Ramgarh

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.Central Coal Field Limited through it Chairman cum Managing Director,Darbhanga House,P.O-G.P.O P.S Kotwali District Ranchi.

¶6

2.Director(Personnel) Central Coal field Limited Darbhanga House, P.O G.P.O,P.S Kotwali,Dist. Ranchi.

¶7

3.General Manager( Personnel) and I.R C.C.L Darbhanga House P.O-G.P.O P.S Kotwali Dist.Ranchi..

¶8

4.General Manager, Kuju Area,C.C.L ,P.O Kuju P.S Mandu Dist. Ramgarh

¶9

5.Staff Officer(Personnel) Kuju rea,C.C.L P.O Kuju P.S Mandu Dist.Ramgarh.

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr.J.P.Jha Sr. Adv.

¶13

Mr.Ranjan Prasad Sinha Adv.

¶14

For the C.C.L Mr.Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kr. Adv.

¶15

Order No.8 : Dated 7th August, 2019

¶16

Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ranjan Pd.Sinha and Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kr. Learned counsel for the C.C.L

¶17

This writ petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to pay the promotional benefits of Sr. clerk w.e.f 25.11.1982 and promotional benefits of office superintendent w.e.f 6..5.1994 and also promotional benefits of E-V.

¶18

Mr. Jha the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that juniors to the petitioner have been provided the said benefits and the petitioner has been left out. He further submits that the petitioner has raised the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1957 before the respondent authorities stating that by virtue of promotion of his junior as clerk Gr.-1 w.e.f 9.2.1976 and further Sr. Clerk w.e.f 25.11.1982 that the settlement between management(Respondent no. 3) and the petitioner was held on 29.9.2000.The management was agreed that the petitioner will be further placed appropriately in the post of Sr. Cletrk w.e.f 25.11.1998 when juniors were promoted by granting notional seniority.

¶19

Mr.Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kr. Learned counsel for the

¶20

-2-

¶21

respondents submits that the petitioner is seeking relief in view of the annexure-1 which is a settlement arrived at in terms of the I.D Act. He further submits that the petitioner approached this court after 11 years of the said settlement and on that ground the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He argued on the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner has already availed alternative remedy under the I.D Act.

¶22

Mr.Jha submits that it is well settled proposition of law and in catena of decision it has been decided that if the writ petition is pending for a long period and affidavit has been exchanged, High Court is well within jurisdiction to decide the case.

¶23

Be that as it may, this court finds that the petitioner has already chosen a forum for redressal of his grievance. The settlement in question which has been arrived between the parties under I.D Act as such the petitioner cannot be allowed to avail two forums for redressal of his grievances. For implementation of the Annexure-1 which is a settlement there is excess remedy provided under the I.D Act.

¶24

In view of the well settled proposition of law, the petitioner cannot be allowed to pursue the claim in two forums. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

¶25

It goes without saying that the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the labour court under the I.D Act.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Shashi Bhusan Das v. Central Coal Field Limited And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bhusan Das v. Central Coal Field Limited And O

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

Dasrath Tanti Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Smt.Sarojini Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Satyadeo Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chunchun Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Vilash Tiwary Vs Police

Saro Devi Vs C C L