Dismissed¶19

Bhuneshwar Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2024WPC/1621/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed - termination of workman Bhuneshwar Rajwar by CCL Project Officer, Parej East OCP (07.12.2007) and rejection of reinstatement appeal (02.03.2016) - disputed questions of fact - alternative remedy under section 2-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad - conciliation certificate issued 2019 - no adjudication on merits; liberty reserved to pursue statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition because it involves disputed questions of fact and the petitioner has an appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ¶19

Bhuneshwar Rajwar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1621 of 2023

¶3

Bhuneshwar Rajwar aged about 45 years son of late Shrinath Rajwar, resident of village-Ichakadih, P.O. Kedia and P.S. Mandu, DistrictRamgarh … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Central Coal Field Limited at Darbhanga House P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi

¶7

Chief General Manager Human Resource Department Central Coal Field Limited, Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi

¶8

The Project Officer Parej East OCP, Central Coal Field Limited, P.O. Parej, P.S. Kedia, District Ramgarh … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG For the Resp. No. 2,3,4 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate ---

¶12

07 /15.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶13

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - (i) “That for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ Order(s)/ direction(s) upon the respondents to quash order dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure-7) passed by the office of Project officer (Respondent No.4) Parej East OCP vide memo No. PO/PEOCP/Termination/07/4680-83, dated 07-12-2007 whereby and whereunder petitioner was terminated from his service.

¶14

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/ direction(s) upon the respondent to quash the letter No. PO/PEOCP/PD/Re-inst/6732-34, vide order 02-03-2016 (Annexure 9) whereby and whereunder the application/ Appeal of this petitioner is rejected on the ground that the total attendance for last three years of the petitioners, Total presence during 2001,2002 and 2003 is 38 days, Nil, 70 days respectively and total attendance for last three years is 108 days.

¶15

(iii) For issuance of directions to pay all arrear amount of the petitioner which was deducted during his service.

¶16

(iv) For issuance of directions to reinstate the petitioner in his post which was terminated without considering his mental illness, for which already prayed before the respondents, which was against the natural justice.”

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had already raised dispute in terms of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under section 2 A of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and the petitioner was advised to raise his dispute before the concerned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Dhanbad but the petitioner has not acted in terms of section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and filed the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioner being a workman has an appropriate remedy under Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and the present writ petition involving disputed questions of facts may not be entertained.

¶18

4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certificate granted by the Conciliation Officer as provided under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was issued way back in the year 2019 and in the meantime, there was covid-19 situation and therefore he could not move before the Industrial Tribunal.

¶19

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on account of disputed questions involved in the present case and also on account of the fact that the petitioner has appropriate remedy before under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

6. However, dismissal of this case will not have any bearing if the petitioner takes step in terms of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law .

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Binit

¶23

Bhuneshwar Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuneshwar Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyama Kant Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dileshwar Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Transport Deptt

Chandra Kant Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt