Disposed

Lalit Mohan Singh v. Union of India Thro Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2024WPC/2016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions sought mandamus for appointment of Presiding Officers to vacant CGIT-cum-Labour Courts at Dhanbad and early disposal of long-pending labour references. The court noted recruitment was in advanced stage and directed that in-charge courts take up matters on merits, not merely give dates. Writ petitions disposed of with observations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lalit Mohan Singh Vs Union of India Thro… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(L) No.3951 of 2023

¶3

Sapna Kumari aged about 30 years, Daughter of Late Manik Bauri resident of Near Q No.A/41 Block, Bhuli P.O. Bhuli, P.S. Bank More, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Union of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, 5, Rafimarg Area, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, District New Delhi

¶6

2. The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, P.O. and P.S. Kusunda, District Dhanbad … … Respondents With

¶7

W.P.(L) No.2016 of 2024

¶8

Lalit Mohan Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Laxmi Singh, resident of C/o Kishor Rana (Om Glass), Old Check Post, Hurhuru, Ranchi – Patna Road, (near Sant Kiran School), P.O. & P.S. – Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)

¶9

… … Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, Shramshakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O. & P.S. – Sansad Marg, District – North East Delhi (New Delhi)

¶12

The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶13

General Manager, Central Workshop of Messers Central Coalfields Limited, Barkakana, P.O. & P.S.- Barkakana, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand). … … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶16

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate (In both the cases) For the UOI : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC (In both the cases) For the BCCL : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate (In W.P.(L) No. 3951 of 2023) For the CCL : Mrs. Saumya Pandey, Advocate (In W.P.(L) No. 2016 of 2024) For the State : Ms. Divya, AC to SC III (In W.P.(L) No. 3951 of 2023)

¶17

--- 09 /03.10.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶18

2. W.P.(L) No. 3951 of 2023 has been filed seeking a mandamus

¶19

upon the respondent state to appoint The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad as the tribunal is said to be vacant since last two years and several cases

¶20

are pending including present case. The writ petition was filed on 19.07.2023. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities the post of The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad is vacant.

¶21

3. W.P.(L) No. 2016 of 2024 has been filed seeking a mandamus for early disposal of the matter in connection with Reference Case No.309 of 1999 said to be pending before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad. It has been brought on record through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities that the post of Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad is vacant.

¶22

4. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 3951 of 2023 reveal that the reference was made to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as back as on 03.01.2020, but the court is vacant and the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 2016 of 2024 is that the Reference Case No.309 of 1999 has not yet been decided.

¶23

5. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the in-charge Presiding Officers, are reluctant in taking up the matters and thus additional charge remains a formality and the litigants continue to suffer.

¶24

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that it would be sufficient to observe that the incharge court is also required to take up the matter on regular basis and merely because the court has been given additional charge, the same is not merely for giving dates but proper adjudication is also to be done. The litigants cannot be made to suffer for an indefinite period of time awaiting filling up of post through regular process.

¶25

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1-Union of India in W.P.(L) No. 3951 of 2023 revealing that the process for filling up the post is in progress; one Dinesh Kumar Singh, who was the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 completed his tenure on 15.12.2022 and vide order dated 06.09.2023,

¶26

¶27

he was again selected and an appointment letter was issued to him on 11.09.2023, but he refused to join the post on 16.10.2023; thereafter, a fresh process began. The matter was fixed for personal interaction of the shortlisted candidate on 27.04.2024, but the concerned agency did not recommend any candidate and the vacancy has been recirculated on 16.05.2024 and the meeting with the applicants has been done on 04.09.2024, candidates have been shortlisted, but the process is yet to complete. It has been stated that the whole process may take minimum of 5 to 6 months. It has also been stated that in the meantime, additional charge to the post of Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad - I have been entrusted to Presiding Officer, CGITcum-Labour Court, Asansol till 01.10.2024 and a proposal for further extension of the additional charge has been sent for approval on 12.08.2024, which was awaited till the filing of the counter affidavit. As on date, the period of alternative arrangement till 01.10.2024 has already expired. The learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has submitted that the counter was filed on 27.09.2024 and he is not aware about the present status. He submits that the notification might have been issued or may be in the pipeline.

¶28

8. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent no.1Union of India in W.P.(L) No. 2016 of 2024 revealing that the court is vacant since 04.10.2023 on completion of tenure of previous incumbent. The process of filling up the post was initiated well in advance on 21.04.2023. After following due procedure, a proposal dated 21.12.2023 was sent for approval and the approval was granted on 12.04.2024 and accordingly, the offer of appointment was issued to the selected candidate on 15.04.2024. However, the candidate refused to join the post on 25.04.2024. The vacancy has been recirculated on 16.05.2024 and the meeting with the applicants has been done on 04.09.2024, candidates have been shortlisted, but the process is yet to complete. It has been stated that the whole process may take minimum 6 months. It has also been stated that in the meantime, additional charge to the post of Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad - 2 has been entrusted to Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

¶29

¶30

Labour Court, Asansol till 03.10.2024 and a proposal for further extension of the additional charge has been sent for approval on 12.08.2024, which was awaited till the filing of the counter affidavit. The period of alternative arrangement till 03.10.2024 is expiring today. The learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has submitted that the counter was filed on 27.09.2024 and he is not aware about the present status. He submits that the notification might have been issued or may be in the pipeline.

¶31

9. Apparently, the case of the petitioner(s) in both the cases are not being taken up on account of the fact that the posts of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court I, Dhanbad as well as the process of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad are vacant and till 01.10.2024 and 03.10.2024 respectively, the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Asansol was made incharge of both the courts at Dhanbad. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the in-charge court does not take up the matters and the additional charge given to the in-charge court remains a formality and the litigants continues to suffer.

¶32

10. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 8 SCC 509 Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap Sudan , it has been held in paragraph no. 15 and 29 by citing the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium that it is the state’s obligation to make available to all its citizens the means for a just and peaceful settlement of disputes between them as to their respective legal rights.

¶33

11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the matter relates to the rights of labour and has serious bearing on the life and livelihood of the labour and their family members.

¶34

12. The records reveal that the process of recruitment to the two posts at Dhanbad is in advanced stage, still it is likely to take some more time and, in the meantime, the respondents have taken steps for making alternative arrangement by giving additional charge to the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Asansol. This Court is of the considered view that the in-charge court is required to take up the

¶35

¶36

Saurav/-

¶37

matter on merits and also for disposal of matters and the task of incharge court cannot remain confined only to the task of giving dates. 13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petitions pending as ultimately the case has to be decided by the appropriate tribunal or labour court, who is entrusted with the disposal of the matter. It is expected that the in-charge court will take appropriate steps to deal with the matters on merits as well so that the disputes are taken to logical end in accordance with law.

¶38

14. With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.

¶39

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Lalit Mohan Singh v. Union of India Thro Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lalit Mohan Singh v. Union of India Thro Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

The Branch Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rojina Khatun

M/S S.K.Gas Services Vs Union of India And Ors.

State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner And Ors. Vs Smt Gayitri Devi Ando Rs

The Manager M/S Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Presiding Officer