Dismissed

Employees in Relation to the Management of Punjab and Sind Bank v. Laxman Ram Since Deceased Represented through Legal Representatives Chanda Devi

Jharkhand HC1 Jun 2020LPA/670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Division Bench held that the impugned order merely directed parties to ascertain a workman's entitlement without final adjudication. Relying on Central Mine Planning, the court declared the appeal not maintainable because the order did not qualify as a 'judgment' and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was held not maintainable due to the impugned order not constituting a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Employees in Relation to the Management of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L. P. A. No. 670 of 2019

¶3

Employees in relation to the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, at PO + PS Daltonganj, Distt. Palamau, Jharkhand

¶4

.... .... …. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Laxman Ram (since deceased) represented through legal representatives

¶7

Chanda Devi W/o Late Laxman Ram

¶8

Anand Prakash, S/o Late Laxman Ram

¶9

both R/o Daltonganj,PO + PS Daltonganj, Distt. Palamau

¶10

.... .... …. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶13

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate ------

¶15

Oral Order Per Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.

¶16

03 / Dated : 01.06.2020

¶17

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has

¶18

been done through video conferencing.

¶19

Office has furnished a report with respect to maintainability of this appeal. It appears from the report of the office dated 18.12.2019 that the L.P.A. has been filed assailing the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and thus, in view of the decision of a Division Bench rendered in L.P.A. No. 195 of 2010 the same may not be maintainable, as it will not come within the meaning of the “Judgment”.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the issue of

¶21

¶22

maintainability. The order dated 08.07.2019 which has been challenged in this appeal is reproduced as under for better appreciation:

¶23

“Both the parties are directed to ascertain the entitlement of the workman who had been reinstated in the same status which he was holding with the respondent at the time of termination of the service.

¶24

As jointly prayed for, put up this case after two weeks.”

¶25

It is apparent from the order impugned that both the parties were merely directed to ascertain the entitlement of the workman who had been reinstated in the same status which he was holding with the respondent at the time of termination of the service.

¶26

It is apparent from the aforesaid order that there is no determination of any issue what to say about final adjudication. Thus, in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench dated 05.07.2010 in L.P.A. No. 195 of 2010 placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr . reported in (2001) 2 SCC 588 , the impugned order will not come within the meaning of the “Judgment” and, therefore, in our considered view, the appeal can not be maintainable.

¶27

A point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that the workman who was engaged on casual basis cannot be compared with the other workman. This limb of argument is neither here nor there as the direction of the Single Bench was only to ascertain the

¶28

¶29

entitlement of the workman who had been reinstated in the same status which he was holding at the time of termination of the service but the lis is yet to be decided.

¶30

In our considered view, since there is no determination of any issue by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned, this appeal is not maintainable and as such, the same is dismissed.

¶31

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J . )

¶32

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶33

VK/

Employees in Relation to the Management of Punjab and Sind Bank v. Laxman Ram Since Deceased Represented through Legal Representatives Chanda Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees in Relation to the Management of Punjab and Sind Bank v. Laxman Ram Since Deceased Represented through Legal Representatives Chanda Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Gazala Vs Union of India through Secretary Drdo

Ms Lal Ferro Alloys Company Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Chetu Sao Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Railway

Uday Prakash Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Prayag Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tawarej Alam Vs State of Jharkhand

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Vs Latika Devi