Disposed

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Thr Its Authorized Representative Niraj Shukla v. Labour

Jharkhand HC28 Nov 2022WPC/6821/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions challenging a notice initiating proceedings under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and an order directing reinstatement. The court held that Section 2-A proceedings are confined to cessation of service, not wages, and accordingly cancelled pending proceedings regarding wage payments while allowing the workman to remedy the wage issue separately.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of. Pending proceeding under Section 2-A is confined to termination of service. Other pending proceeding regarding payment of wages under Majithia Wage Board recommend

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Thr Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No.6821 of 2016

¶3

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, through its authorized representative, Niraj Shukla

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Ranchi

¶8

The Labour Superintendent, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Ranchi

¶10

Shree Umesh Kumar Mallick …... Respondents

¶11

With

¶12

W.P.(L) No.1993 of 2017

¶13

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited, through its authorized representative, Niraj Shukla

¶14

…… Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand

¶17

Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Ranchi

¶18

The Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Ranchi

¶19

The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi

¶20

The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi

¶21

The Labour Superintendent, Ranchi

¶22

Umesh Kumar Mallick …... Respondents

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶24

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. K. Roy, G.A I Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C to G.A.I For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate --------- 15/Dated: 28th November, 2022

¶25

1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

¶26

2. The writ petition being W.P.(L) No.1993 of 2017 has been filed for quashing the Notice dated 07.02.2017, bearing Letter No.22/2017 (Annexure – 1) and Letter dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure – 3). It appears that by the said letters

¶27

- 2 -

¶28

a proceedings under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been initiated and that initiation has been challenged.

¶29

The writ petition being W.P.(L) No.6821 of 2016 has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.10.2016, whereby the Labour Superintendent, Ranchi has directed the petitioner-organization to reinstate the workman otherwise a proceeding will be initiated. Further, the petitionerorganization was also given direction/ advice to make payment to the workman in accordance with the “Majithia Wage Board recommendations”.

¶30

It appears that thereafter a proceeding under Section 2- A of the I.D. Act was initiated which has been registered and numbered as Reference Case No.02 of 2016.

¶31

3. The law is settled that if there is cessation of employeeemployer relationship by any methodology then the concerned workman is at liberty to approach the Labour Court under Section 2-A of the I.D Act. This liberty is confined only with regard to cessation of service and not for any other issue. For other issue, industrial dispute has to be raised under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. Admittedly in the present writ petitions, there are two disputes. One with regard to termination of service and the another regarding wages as per recommendations of the “Majithia Wage Board”.

¶32

4. It is made clear that the pending proceeding under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act being Reference Case No.02 of 2016 has to be confined for the termination of service only as the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide regarding wages under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act.

¶33

With above clarification to the Labour Court, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶34

5. In view of the above confinement of the proceeding to the termination only, any other proceeding pending with regard to the payment of wages, as per the recommendations of “Majithia Wage Board”, stands cancelled.

¶35

6. However, the concerned workman is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶36

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶37

Chandan/-

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Thr Its Authorized Representative Niraj Shukla v. Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Media Ventures Limited Thr Its Authorized Representative Niraj Shukla v. Labour

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

Bhima Malto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manas Singh Alias Manwa Singh Alias Mahwa Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Ojha Vs the Employer in Relation to the Management of Sirka Group Argada Colliery of Ms C C L

M/S Colliery Sramic Sangh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Alias Raj Kumar Sharma Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its Chief Managing Director And Ors.