Dismissed

Dewa Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2022WPC/6614/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. It held the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act due to supervisory functions and that his departure was based on company superannuation rules at age 55, not dismissal. The petition was deemed devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

Dewa Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W. P. (L) No. 6614 of 2010

¶2

Dewa Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

2.The Management of M/s Teksons Cooling System Private Limited through its Manager, Adityapur Industrial Area, Gamharia, Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶6

........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO [Through : Video Conferencing]

¶7

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA.III For the Resp. -Management : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

¶8

09 / 06.01.2022 . Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ankit Vishal and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Resp. -Management as well as Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to GA.III for the State.

¶9

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner/ Workman, Dewa Singh has claimed himself to be a Workman and has assailed the judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No.01 of 2002 whereby, the Labour Court has negated the Reference as contained in Notification no.4/Shram D-5010/2001 L&T-620 dated 08.02.2002 :- ”Whether to give retirement to Shri Dewa Singh since 07.02.2000 by the management M/s. Teksons Cooling System Pvt. Ltd; Industrial Area, Larze Sector, Gamhariya, West Singhbhum, is justified? If not, what relief the above Workman is entitled to?”

¶10

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel has further submitted that the work of petitioner- Dewa Singh comes under the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act as he was performing as General Foreman and was doing all types of work assigned to him.

¶11

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel has further submitted that against the said judgment, the petitioner (Dewa Singh) has preferred the instant Writ Petition on the ground that he has been dismissed /retrenched at the age of 55 years, contrary to the rules where the age for superannuation was 60 years.

¶12

To buttress his argument, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel in support of his submission has placed Para 14 of the impugned judgment where the issue no.(i) with regard to “Whether Sri Dewa Singh was vested power to discharge his duty

¶13

-2-

¶14

with supervisory capacity, or he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947 ?, has been discussed elaborately by the learned Trial Court and has placed entire material brought on record and thus, submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court may be set aside and relief may be granted to the petitioner/ Workman accordingly.

¶15

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RespondentManagement in support of his submission has placed the Para-14 of the impugned judgment, where the issue with regard to Workman has been dealt with by the learned Presiding Officer and has submitted that from bare perusal of the material brought on record, it appears that Workman/petitioner, Dewa Singh has examined himself in the case and produced another witness on his behalf, namely, Ramchandra Bhumij as W.W.2, but petitioner (Dewa Singh) has not produced any material so as to be excluded from the exception (iv) of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 either showing his pay-slip or anything to suggest that petitioner/ Dewa Singh was a Workman of the Management.

¶16

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RespondentManagement has further submitted that the Respondent- Management has examined M.W.1- Mr. P. N. R. Rao, an Administrative Officer of the Company who has deposed that Dewa Singh was working as supervisor in the factory of the company situated at Gamharia and he was working on the Post of General Foreman. The Appointment letter dated 01.06.1994 of Dewa Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit-M; the job responsibilities, prepared by the Project Manager M. S. Dhillon has been proved and marked as Exhibit-M/1 and the confirmation letter dated 20.07.1996 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-M/2; the general notice dated 01.12.1994 issued by the Company has been proved and marked as M/3; Employees Service Rule of the company has been proved and marked as Exhibit-M/4. It has further been deposed that as per the Service Rules, superannuation age of an employee was 55 years and thus, Dewa Singh was also superannuated on completing the age of 55 years. This witness has further stated that Dewa Singh was working as Supervisor-cum-Group Leader cum Manager Factory and the workers and Group leaders were working under supervision of Sri Dewa Singh and Sri Dewa Singh used to assign duty, distribute works to the worker and to supervise the work done by the workers under him and further supported that Sri Dewa Singh used to sanction leave of the Workers of the Company and he used to take trial of new recruited workers and workers are

¶17

-3-

¶18

employed on the basis of recommendation of Sri Dewa Singh. Further this witness has stated that Dewa Singh used to purchase material for the factory if there occurs some urgency in the factory and he also used to decide the price of the material and he does not operate machine by his own hand and his main work was as a supervisory category and he was working as a General Foreman. Dewa Singh issued instruction and also grant leave of the workmen. This witness has also proved duty chart of Amit Kumar Jha duly prepared by Sri Dewa Singh and it is marked as Ext. M/5 and further proved another duty chart i.e. Ext. M/5-A to Ext. M/5-C which were singed by Sri Dewa Singh and this witness has also proved confidential report in respect of performance of workman, Ramchandra Bhumij signed by Dewa Singh and it is marked as Exhibit- M/6. This witness has also proved that Sri Dewa Singh used to give rating for the work performed by workers and group leaders working under him and this witness has also proved trial slip for the other workmen and these are marked as Exhibit-M/7 to M/7-C. This witness has also proved that a resignation letter submitted by a workman was forwarded by Sri Dewa Singh and resignation letter dated 06.07.1996 of Sri P. P. S. Sindhu has been forwarded by Sri Dewa Singh and it is marked as ExhibitM/8. This witness has also proved fire report dated 18.12.1996 signed and submitted by Sri Dewa Singh and the same is marked as Ext. M/9. This witness has also proved leave application of the Workman submitted by different Workmen of the company and sanctioned by Dewa Singh (petitioner). These are marked as Exhibit-M/10 to M/10-I (i.e. ten leave application). This witness has denied that Sri Dewa Singh was working as workman rather it has been supported that Sri Dewa Singh was working as a Supervisor in the company. This witness during his cross-examination at Para-12 has further submitted that provisions of Employees Service Rules are also applicable on Sri Dewa Singh.

¶19

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RespondentManagement has further submitted that Mr. Subrat Chatterjee has been examined as M.W.2. This witness has also stated that Dewa Singh was Supervising the work of other workmen including him and he was supervising, guiding, instructing to the workman working under him and also used to grant leave to the workmen, assigned job/duty and distribute work of the factory i.e. to the other workers working under him and further supported that as per the Service Rules, superannuation age of the company was 55 years. He has also proved letter dated 20.12.99 issued under the signature of Administrative Officer Mr. P. Nag Prasad and Administrative Manager Mr. K. S. Ramchandram by which Sri Dewa Singh

¶20

-4-

¶21

was intimated that in accordance with the service rules of the company applicable to the employees including him the age of superannuation is 55 years in the company and it is marked as Ext. M/A and this witness has also proved ESI certificate dated 30.03.1999 issued by Medical Officer of ESI Corporation giving information of sickness of Sri Dewa Singh and it is marked as Ext. M/11 and this witness has denied that age of superannuation was 60 years in the company rather it has been supported that it was 55 years and this witness has further supported that Sri Dewa Singh was holding the post of General Foreman and was working under supervisory capacity and he was also supervising the production work and there were the post of General Manager and Administrative Manager above the post of General Foreman and this witness has also supported that he was working under the supervision and instruction of Sri Dewa Singh and denied the other suggestions as put forward to him.

¶22

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RespondentManagement has further submitted that the Respondent -Management has also brought on record the evidence which do suggest that Dewa Singh was not a workman whose adjudication has been done under the facts and circumstances of the case under the I.D. Act.

¶23

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RespondentManagement has thus, submitted that finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of such exhibits and evidence brought on record does not require any interference by this Court as there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, as such, this Hon’ble Court may not interfere with the same and dismiss the instant Writ Petition, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of D. P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., reported in 1983 (4) SCC 293 .

¶24

Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to G.A.-III appearing for the State has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court, as the same is based upon the material brought on record.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material on record including the definition of Workman given under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it appears that industrial dispute can only be raised if it is a case of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment to a workman, who comes under the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. In the present case it appears from the service rules which has been brought on record as Exhibit-M/4,

¶26

-5-

¶27

the superannuation age was 55 years and prior to that the Management has given intimation vide letter dated 20.12.1999 duly signed by the Administrative Officer, Mr. P. Nag Prasad Rao and Administrative Manger, Mr. K. S. Ramchandram to Dewa Singh that as per the service rule of the company applicable to the employee including him, the age of superannuation is 55 years in the company and the same has been marked as Exhibit-M/A. Apart from that, no evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner/ Workman, Dewa Singh so as to be excluded from exception (iv) of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 to consider that he was a Workman under the I.D. Act, 1947.

¶28

Under the circumstances, in view of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with such finding which is based upon the cogent reason that petitioner (Dewa Singh) has failed to lay any evidence so as to come under definition of 2(s) of the I.D. Act as well as it is not a case of dismissal, retrenchment or removal from the service rather it is a case of superannuation as per the rules of the company which has been brought on record as Exhibit-M and intimation with regard to the same has been given vide Ext. M/A.

¶29

The instant Writ Petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Pending I.A. Stands closed.

¶31

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶32

Sandeep/

Dewa Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dewa Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

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

Lakhu Sheikh Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Ors.

Dhano Oraon And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department