The High Court dismissed this writ petition as withdrawn by the petitioner. The court reserved liberty to challenge the unchallenged order dated 20.07.2018 pertaining to the petitioner's service grievances.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3127 of 2019
Suleman Ansari aged about 49 years son of late Ibrahim Mian, resident of Local Dam, Flat No. 331, Colony, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad … … Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India through the Section Officer, Ministry of Labour, Shram Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi-11001 2. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through C.M.D. Koyla, Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 3. The General Manager, Barora Area No. 1, B.C.C.L. P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Barora, District-Dhanbad
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
Through Video Conferencing
6 /24.02.2022 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-CCL.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“ For issuance of direction upon the respondents to fix basic scale of the petitioner in continuance of the year 2001, before his dismissal, taking his continued service into consideration without brake as his service was re-instated vide Ref. No. 1273 dated 15.09.2003 issued by the respondent No. 5.
For issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay difference of salary after fixation of basic, treating him in continued service after re-instatement after dismissal from service.”
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection to the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that as per Annexure6, matter was taken up at the stage of conciliation and as per the
2
conciliation report, the dispute was declined to be referred to adjudication by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the relief as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted to the writ petitioner. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is a stale claim.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall withdraw this petition with a liberty to challenge the order as contained in Annexure-6 which is dated 20.07.2018 which he has not challenged, as the present writ petition was pending before this court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievances in connection with order dated 20.07.2018 annexed as Annexure-6 to the present writ petition.
8. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to exercise jurisdiction to grant reliefs regarding basic scale fixation and salary difference in an employment service dispute.
Suleman Ansari
Union of India
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
General Manager, Barora Area
General Manager, Katras Area
Area Personnel Manager, Katras Area
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
