Allowed

Jai Deo Ray v. M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2022WPC/1524/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand directed the respondent employer to pay the petitioner an outstanding VRS amount of Rs.1,79,100 along with simple interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the Labour Court award, as reinstatement was ruled out due to the petitioner's age. Petitioner suffers mental agony due to delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,79,100 along with simple interest at 7.5% per annum from 03.09.2009.

Jai Deo Ray Vs M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶2

W.P.(L) No. 1524 of 2010

¶3

….....

¶4

Jai Deo Ray

¶5

…. ..... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

¶8

…. ..... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶10

…......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Swaroop Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. G. M. Mishra, Advocate.

¶11

........

¶12

13/06.01.2022

¶13

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The workman petitioner, Jai Deo Ray has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 08.04.2010, against the award dated 03.09.2009, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in Reference Case No.03/2005, whereby and whereunder though reference is replied affirmative in favour of the workman, but no relief, so far reinstatement with all consequential benefit has been granted and in place of reinstatement only suggested that the workman could be given the relief of VRS scheme.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Achyut Swaroop Mishra has submitted, that petitioner joined the respondent organization in the year 1977 and after 26 years of service, he has been retrenched from service on 28.02.2003, for which a reference has been made under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was received before the Labour Court on 25.04.2005:-

¶16

“ Whether the dismissal of Sri Jaideo Roy, Asstt. Officer (Store), check no.2504 Kedla Site, Hazaribag from dated 28.02.2003 by the management of T.R.F. (Tata Robins Frazer) Ltd. 11, Burmamines Road, Jamshedpur is justified ? If not, whether Sri Jaideo Roy may be reinstated or what other relief he his entitled to ? ”

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after full-fledged proceeding, the reference has been answered in affirmative in favour of the workman by holding at paras-45 & 46 of the impugned order that :

¶18

-2-

¶19

“45. The document also indicates that the condition contemplated u/s. 25 F has also not been applied nor was given effect to. Ext. M does not speaks any specified date for termination of service thus the proviso attached to sub section (a) is not applicable. Ext.M/3 also does not mentions or considers the period of notice as stipulated in sub section (a) regarding payment of wages in lieu of notice. The management has also not been able to substantiate that sub clause (b) and (c) of section 25 F if complied. Thus in any view of the matter the condition precedent to retrenchment, in the present case, has not been complied. Thus there is violation of section 25 F by the management who was under obligation to comply the provision aforesaid. In absence of such non compliance the termination of the workman can not be upheld, and in the circumstances it can be said to be improper and not in accordance with law. The point no (c) is replied accordingly.

¶20

46. Now in the circumstances it is to be seen what relief the workman can be given. The applicant's dismissal is observed not in accordance with law. The conduct of the management, as apparent from ext.M/3 as well as the oral evidence, that the management do not have any intention to keep the workman, though no specific reason is attributed for that. This Court can not compel the management to disclose the intention or reason. Since the workman had worked with the management for petty long time and excepting ext. M/2-a to M/2-c which shows that the work appraisal of the applicant is poor, no wrongful act is reported before the Court nor any evidence adduced for that, thus in the circumstances and considering the present age of the applicant which is 59 yrs, re-employment of the applicant to the post will not be conducive for the working of the applicant as well as the management and contention will always germane in between them which will not be in the interest of the applicant as well as for the management. Thus this Court rules out the relief of re-instatement. In the circumstances of the case and considering ext. M/4, the applicant has prayed for consideration of the opportunity of V.R.S, which has been refused. But in the circumstances the management must reconsider the prayer for V.R.S of this workman so that the workman may discharge his due obligation of his family and other sundry. Thus this court is of opinion that the relief of V.R.S. could be extended to the workman.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted, that though learned Tribunal has granted relief of VRS instead of reinstatement, which

¶22

-3-

¶23

has been assailed before this Court, but as per the age of the petitioner, he has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011, as such, this Court may grant a lump sum amount to the petitioner, in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Jayanti Bhai Rosa Bhai Patel Vs. Municipal counsel Narkeda & Others Civil Appeal No.6188/2019, ( 2019) 17 SCC 184 .

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Others Vs. Krishan Pal Singh, 2021 SCC online SC 751 and thus submitted that a lump sum amount with interest may be granted to the petitioner, as the respondent has never tendered the amount, pursuant to the direction passed by learned Tribunal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. M. Mishra has opposed the prayer and has submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed an application before the management on 06.06.2003, praying therein that his termination may be modified to VRS and if VRS is possible, payment be made monthly. If VRS is not possible, then ex-gratia of sum of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to him.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. M. Mishra has further submitted that the management has filed counter affidavit on 30.08.2010, wherein it has been categorically stated at paragraph-20, that earlier rejection of the application of the petitioner for his VRS, which was submitted after his termination order, the management of the respondent company is ready and willing to give the petitioner, the benefits of VR. Scheme in compliance with the direction in the impugned award.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. M. Mishra has further submitted, that at paragraph-25 (c) of the counter affidavit dated 30.08.2010, it has further been stated, that management of the respondent company was ready and willing even prior to the pronouncement of the award, after the petitioner wanted voluntary retirement.

¶28

It is categorically stated and submitted that in compliance with the award the management is willing to pay a sum of Rs.1,79,100/- the amount, which has been calculated as per the scheme prevalent, to the

¶29

-4-

¶30

petitioner besides his other dues if any, such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 07.09.2021, stating therein that entire retiral dues amounting to Rs.5,39,176/- has already been paid to the petitioner, the details of which are given hereunder:-

¶32

“Details of Rs.5,39,176/- is as follows:-

¶33

(a) PF amount – Rs.2,98,683/- (Rupees: Two lakh ninety eight thousand six hundred eighty three only).

¶34

(b) Superannuation Fund – Rs.85,929/- (Rupees: Eighty five thousand nine hundred twenty nine only).

¶35

¶36

(d) Gratuity – Rs.48,793/- (Rupees: Forty eight thousand seven hundred ninety three only)

¶37

(e) Ex-Gratia – Rs.50,000/-(Rupees: Fifty thousand only).

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted, that the said amount of Rs.5,39,176/- has already been paid through cheque No.274868 dated 09.07.2010 drawn on State Bank of India and as such, he has submitted that Rs.1,79,100/- be further paid to the workman, but without interest. As the amount has already been tendered by the Management, as such, the question of interest does not arises, which will be a harsh order against the Management, as the Management was very much inclined to pay this amount to the tune of Rs.1,79,100/- to the workman, besides other payment including Rs.50,000/- as ex-gratia and that is in consonance with the award.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Achyut Swaroop Mishra has submitted, that this poor workman has suffered mental agony because of order of termination since 2003, even after working for 26 years with the organization. The order of termination was found to be perversed and VRS scheme was made applicable, which has been challenged by the petitioner workman before this Hon'ble Court, but the amount which the Management wants to tender of Rs.1,79,100/- remains with the Management. The Management ought to have transferred the said amount

¶40

-5-

¶41

to the Bank Account of the workman petitioner or the Management would be bonafide, if the said amount would have been deposited in the fixed deposit scheme, so as to the fetch interest and if the amount of Rs.1,79,100/- be given to the petitioner then petitioner will suffer monetary loss, even if the right granted to him under the constitution has been invoked by him.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that interest ought to have been quantified on the basis of prevalent rate of interest of the Nationalized Bank as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208 , where the interest has been quantified as simple interest @ 7.5% per annum, as such, the amount, which is with the Management may be given with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of award i.e. 03.09.2009 till the actual amount is paid in the account of the petitioner.

¶43

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of petitioner as well as Management, since the workman has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011, this Court cannot pass an order of reinstatement. The VRS scheme, which the petitioner has tendered in the year 2003, has been rejected by the Management because of the pendency of the litigation before the Labour Court and pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the retiral dues has already been paid to the tune of Rs.5,39,176/- vide Cheque No.274868 dated 09.07.2010 inclusive of exgratia of Rs.50,000/-. This Court thinks that since the Management has fairly tendered to pay Rs.1,79,100/-, which ought to have been paid by the management, but the amount remains with the Management and also the interest accrued on that amount remains with the Management.

¶44

Under the aforesaid circumstances, in view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmapal & Sons (supra) , this Court directs the Management to pay the aforesaid amount Rs.1,79,100/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum to the workman from the date of award i.e. 03.09.2009 till the actual date of payment.

¶45

-6-

¶46

It is expected that such amount shall be paid within a period of 30 days, failing which the Management has to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for delay payment of more than one month.

¶47

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶49

Jay/-

Jai Deo Ray v. M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Deo Ray v. M/S.Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.

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

Golak Bihari Paul Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Asif Zeya And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajan Lohar Kamar Vs Small Industries Development B

Dewa Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lakhu Sheikh Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Dhano Oraon And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department