Dismissed

Manu Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Limited

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2024WPC/147/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition where a former employee, previously dismissed due to conviction, sought reinstatement to his original post and pay scale after the conviction was set aside via compromise. The Court held that a settlement under Form H treating the employee as 'fresh' was binding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for reinstatement and continuation of service as per original post was dismissed.

Manu Manjhi Vs Central Coalfields Limited — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 147 of 2023

¶3

Manu Manjhi, Aged about 54 years, Son of Amba Manjhi, Resident of at 6/77, Karandih, P.O.: Pichhri, P.S.: Petarwar, District: Bokaro (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Central Coalfields Limited.

¶6

The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited, having its Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.: G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.: Kotwali, Ranchi, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The General Manager (KTA), Central Coalfields Limited, Kathara, having it’s office at Kathara, P.O. & P.S.Kathara, District: Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶8

The Project Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Jarangdih Colliery, Bokaro, P.O.: & P.S: Jarangdih, district: Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranesh Anand, Advocate

¶13

¶14

06 /07.03.2024 Learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶16

“That by way of present writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, Rule/Rules, order/orders, direction/ directions, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, for Directing & Commanding upon the respondent concerned for continue the service after reappointment/reinstatement of the petitioner on its Original stage post for his last service Or before his dismissal (E.P. Turner), whereby & whereunder Respondent concerned vide Letter Ref. No.:GM(P&IR)/PKL/M.Manjhi/KTA/22/1208, Dated 31.05.2022, issued an Office Order for reappointment of the petitioner in the Company as a "Fresh Employee" as Category -I Mazdoor with initial basic pay of Category - I of coal wage Agreement X, which is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unsustainable in the eye of law:

¶17

And

¶18

For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, or writ in Nature of Mandamus for commanding & directing upon the respondent concerned, to continue the service after reappointment of the petitioner on its Original post of his last service (E.P. Turner) with its original pay scale and concerned other benefits of his last service for which the petitioner legally entitled before his dismissal the petitioner on the post of his last service, the respondent concerned, under the influence of biasness, ordered to the petitioner for reappointment in the service as Fresh Employee with its initial basic pay and also for completion of probation period of six months from the date of joining is grossly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable in the eye of law:

¶19

AND/OR

¶20

For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, or writ in Nature of Mandamus for commanding & directing upon the respondent concerned, for continued the service of the

¶21

¶22

petitioner from its original stage post of his last service (E.P. Turner) with the original pay scale and other benefits for which petitioner legally entitled in the eye of law:

¶23

AND/OR

¶24

For any other relief/reliefs, for which the petitioner is legally entitled to, in the facts & circumstances of this case, for conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶25

3. The learned counsel for the respondents while objecting to the prayer made by the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was reinstated in service as a fresh employee by virtue of office order dated 31.05.2022 which was a settlement arrived as per the terms and conditions in “Form H” of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules and was duly signed by both the parties. The learned counsel has submitted that such settlement is binding and the petitioner has also acted pursuant to that settlement and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same.

¶26

4. The facts reveal that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 18.07.2019 passed in C.P. Case No.1061 of 2018 and was punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay compensation amount of Rs.6,38,000/- for offence committed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2019 which was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 07.01.2021.

¶27

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 12.04.2021 on account of his conviction in the criminal case and the reply of the petitioner having been found unsatisfactory the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the respondents vide office order dated 20.09.2021.

¶28

6. However, the petitioner moved this High Court in Criminal Revision No.277 of 2021 against the appellate order dated 07.01.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2019 and the High Court considering that the case was compoundable in nature and that the dispute was settled out of court and money was transferred and accordingly the order of the appellate court dated 07.01.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2019 and the order passed in C.P. Case No.1061 of 2018 dated 18.07.2019 were set aside vide order dated 21.10.2021.

¶29

¶30

7. Thus, the criminal case against the petitioner ended in a compromise and prior to that the petitioner was already dismissed on account of his conviction vide office order dated 20.09.2021.

¶31

8. After the order was passed in the Criminal Revision application, the petitioner filed a representation on 04.12.2021 and the respondents and the petitioner entered into settlement in Form-H under Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules on 31.05.2022 in presence of the witnesses and as per the terms and conditions of settlement, interalia, the petitioner was to be treated as fresh employee as category I Mazdoor.

¶32

9. It has been stated by the petitioner in his writ petition itself that the petitioner after issuance of the office order for re-appointment joined the service as fresh employee in spite of his original post of service. After joining the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 17.01.2023 claiming his original stage of service. In the writ petition there is no allegation of any fraud etc. and the fact remains that the conviction of the petitioner was set aside by virtue of a compromise and on account of conviction of the petitioner the order of dismissal dated 20.09.2021 was passed and after the order passed in criminal revision by way of compromise a settlement was entered into in Form-H whereby the petitioner agreed to be appointed as fresh employee.

¶33

10. This Court is of the considered view that the terms and conditions of settlement entered in Form-H under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is binding on the parties.

¶34

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there has been a settlement between the parties and the petitioner had joined as fresh employee pursuant to such settlement, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶35

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Saurav

Manu Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Limited

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

Sanjay Kumar Alias Sanjay Sao Alias Sanjay Sao Kanhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asha Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy Development

Jharkhand State Electricity Bo Vs M/S K.Y.S.Manufacturers And Exp

Dominica Tirkey Vs the Union of India through Home Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Suchit Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Niraj Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand