Dismissed

Binod Kumar Jha v. the Management of Zila Parisad Dhanbad through Ddc Cum Chief Executive Officer

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2024LPA/340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily-wage workmen terminated without Section 25F notice challenged the Labour Court award granting three months' wages instead of reinstatement. The writ court upheld the award; the Division Bench, citing Supreme Court precedent that Section 25F violations do not mandate automatic reinstatement, dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Binod Kumar Jha Vs the Management of Zila… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

L.P.A. No. 340 of 2023

¶4

Binod Kumar Jha, aged about-56 years, son of Shri Harikant Jha, resident of Village-Lakhwar, P.O. Lakhwar, P.S.- Rajnagar, DistrictMadhubani (Bihar) at present residing at New Debi Electronics, Police Line, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶5

Kamakhya Narayan Singh aged about-53 Years, son of Late Deo Nandan Singh resident of Village – Milki Charampur, P.O. Jaitipur, Kurwa, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad at present residing at Dhanbad, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶6

… Petitioners/Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Management of Zila Parisad Dhanbad Through DDC cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, DistDhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, town & Dist.- Dhanbad.

¶10

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, Town & Dist.- Dhanbad,

¶11

…. Respondents/Respondents

¶12

Ramchandra Yadav, S/o. Rati Yadav

¶13

Ram Khelawan Yadav, S/o Nanku Yadav Both Resident of Naitand, P.O. & P.S.- Jai Nagar, District Koderma, Jharkhand.

¶14

Golak Mandal, S/o. Late Ashu Mondal, Village- Dhaiya, P.O. I.S.M., P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.

¶15

Narayan Mondal, S/o. Late Govind Mondal, R/o. Village Dhaiya, P.O.- I.S.M., P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad.

¶16

Raj Kumar Singh, S/o. Sitaram Singh, Village & PO- Ghangh Sirsi, P.S.- Bhaktiyarpur, District- Patna (Bihar)

¶17

Jitendra Kumar, S/o. Ram Saran Prasad, R/o. Village Islampur, P.O. & P.S. Islampur, District – Dhanbad.

¶18

…. Petitioners/Performs Respondents

¶19

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶20

--------For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V ---------

¶21

¶22

L.P.A. No. 340 of 2023

¶23

9^th January 2024

¶24

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.

¶25

I.A. No. 6670 of 2023

¶26

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 162 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in the Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 162 days and, accordingly, I.A. No. 6670 of 2023 is allowed.

¶28

L.P.A. No. 340 of 2023

¶29

Challenge to the award dated 12^th February 2008 passed in W.P. (L) No. 5257 of 2008 was not accepted by the writ Court. In the order dated 12^th December 2022, the writ Court affirmed the Labour Court’s reasoning for not making an order for reinstatement of the workmen, observing as under:-

¶30

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the Labour Court has given finding that the petitioners have been engaged for some period. It has also been held that they have been removed and their services thereafter have not been continued. The engagement and non-continuation is contrary to Section 25F of the I.D. Act and one months notice has also not been given.

¶31

It is also well settled law that for violation of Section 25F of the I. D. Act, automatic reinstatement cannot be the only relief. Considering the above fact, the learned Labour Court has given three months wages to the petitioners.

¶32

In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned Award. Accordingly, the Award dated 12.02.2008 is upheld and the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.”

¶33

The case set up by the appellants is that similarly situated other co-workers have been regularized but their claim for regularization was ignored and they were illegally terminated from service. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the retrenchment of the appellants was in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this finding was not challenged by the Management and, therefore, the natural consequence would be automatic reinstatement of the appellants in service.

¶34

Before the Labour Court, the reference made by the Government of Jharkhand was as to legality of retrenchment of the workmen; ten in number. On behalf of the workmen, five witnesses were

¶35

¶36

L.P.A. No. 340 of 2023

¶37

examined and as many as 15 documents were laid in evidence. The evidence tendered by these witnesses before the Labour Court was that they were appointed on daily wages to discharge the duty of Watchman, Pump Operator, Godown Worker, Electrical Worker, Guard, etc. This is also their evidence that no appointment letter was given to them. The defence set up by the Management was that the workmen were engaged for emergency work and their engagement was terminated because they were no longer required by the Management. However, the Labour Court primarily relying on a letter of the Deputy Development Commissioner at Dhanbad vide Exhibit W-12 held that the retrenchment order was without any notice to the workmen and, therefore, in contravention to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has recorded a specific finding that the workmen are not entitled for reinstatement in service and the award dated 12^th February 2008 was made with a direction to pay three months’ wages with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶38

Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, the learned AC to GP-V submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others” (2004) 7 SCC 112 , no interference with the Award dated 12^th February 2008 is required. We may also add that the workmen Binod Kumar Jha and Kamakhya Narayan Singh, who are the appellants, were terminated way back in the years 1990-91 and since then about 34 years have passed. Moreover, this is a well-settled law that infraction of the provisions under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not result in automatic reinstatement in service [refer, “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal” (2014) 7 SCC 177 ].

¶39

While so, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 340 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶40

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶41

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶42

Manoj/-

Binod Kumar Jha v. the Management of Zila Parisad Dhanbad through Ddc Cum Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Binod Kumar Jha v. the Management of Zila Parisad Dhanbad through Ddc Cum Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khuteja Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Executive Engineer Water Ways Division No 1 Chakradharpur Water Resources Department Vs Ms Modi Project Ltd. Kanke Road Ranchi

Navin Kumar Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hilltop Hirise Private Limited through Abhay Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Gendia Debi Vs the State of Jharkhand