Disposed

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its General Manager Jitendra Sathua Mahapatra v. Employees in Relation to Their Workman Chhotu Ram Mahto

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2024WPC/777/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Labour Court award of full back wages to a reinstated workman who had been removed after a conviction later set aside on appeal. Following the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 291 of 2017, the court modified the award to confine payment to full salary minus subsistence allowance for the suspension period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Labour Court judgment modified: General Manager, Western Jharia Area directed to pay full salary minus subsistence allowance already paid from 15.09.2003 to 03.12.2003 only.

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

1 W.P. (L.). No. 777 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 777 of 2019

¶3

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India Limited), having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand), through its General Manager, namely, Jitendra Sathua Mahapatra, aged about 54 years, son of Late Duryodhan Sathua Mahapatra, resident of Moonidih Officers' Colony, P.O. Moonidih, P.S. Putki, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ........... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Employees in relation to their workman, namely, Chhotu Ram Mahto, son of Late Sitaram Mahto, resident of village Majhladih, P.O. & P.S. Putki, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ........... Respondent

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Adv.

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari , for quashing/setting aside the judgment dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, whereby and where under, M.J. Case No.14 of 2017 filed by the respondent-workman was disposed of by the Labour Court, directing the writ petitioner to pay the back wages to the applicant/ respondent-workman.

¶11

The brief fact of the case is that the respondent was the permanent employee of the petitioner-BCCL, posted as Mining Sirdar of a project, of the petitioner company. He was convicted vide judgment dated 06.06.2003 in Sessions Trial no. 17 of 2001 for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, but the said judgment of conviction and the order of

¶12

¶13

W.P. (L.). No. 777 of 2019

¶14

sentence was set aside by this Court vide a common judgment dated 29.08.2006 in Cr. Appeal No. 796 of 2003 with Cr.Appeal No. 467 of 2004. Consequent of his conviction, the respondent was charge sheeted and was placed under suspension. The respondent filed WP (S) No., 5476 of 2003 challenging the order of suspension. This court vide order dated 18.11.2003, disposed of the WP (S) no. 5476 of 2003 with an observation that the respondent shall be entitled to subsistence allowance, regularly and in the event of the order of conviction is set aside, he will be entitled to full salary in accordance with law. The writ petitioner subsequently removed the respondent workman, namely Chhotu Ram Mahato, from the services of the company. After his acquittal, the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato submitted a representation through the registered union and requested for reinstatement of his services with full back wages. Besides that, respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato prayed for payment of the salary from the period of 15.09.2003 to 03.12.2003, during which, he was put under suspension. The writ petitioner, vide office order dated 22.02.2008, reinstated the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato in service with effect from 26.02.2008 but deprived him of back wages for the period, he remained under suspension as well as for the period, he was kept out from the service till the renewal of the service. The respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato, filed WP(S) no. 1323 of 2009 and vide order dated 25.01.2017, a coordinate Bench of this court, allowed the writ petition, and held that the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato is entitled for back wages from the date, he had lodged the demand after his acquittal i.e. 22.11.2006, until the date of his reinstatement. After the same, the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad vide M.J. case no. 14 of 2017 for the due amount. Learned Labour court Dhanbad, vide the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2018 in the said M.J. case no. 14 of 2017, directed the General Manager, Western Jharia Area of the writ petitioner, to pay the back wages

¶15

¶16

W.P. (L.). No. 777 of 2019

¶17

to the applicant from 22.11.2006 within sixty days from passing of the said impugned judgment by the Labour Court, Dhanbad. The writ petitioner challenged the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP (S) No. 1323 of 2009 vide LPA No. 291 of 2017. The division bench by the order dated 21.02.2022 in the said LPA No. 291 of 2017, set aside the order passed by the Single Judge, in WP (S) No. 1323 of 2009, except to the extent that the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato, shall get full salary during the period , he remained under suspension.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though writ petitioner prayed for quashing the entire judgment dated 31.12.2018 but in view of the said judgment dated, 21.02.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court, in LPA No. 291 of 2017, the petitioner modifies his prayer and submits that the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2018 be modified by confining the same, regarding direction to the General Manager, Western Jharia area of the writ petitioner, to pay the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato full salary, during the period he remained under suspension form 15.09.2003 to 03.12.2003.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No. 291 of 2017, which has not been challenged by the respondent anywhere and the respondent has no serious objection if the judgment dated 31.12.2018 in M.J. case no. 14 of 2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, is modified by confining it only to direct the General Manager, Western Jharia, area of the writ petitioner, to pay full salary to the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato from 15.09.2003 to 03.12.2003.

¶20

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials available in the record, keeping in view the undisputed fact as mentioned above, and in view of the judgment dated 21.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 291 of 2017, the judgment dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Labour Court Dhanbad in M.J. case no. 14 of 2017 is modified by confining the direction made to the opp. party therein, being the

¶21

4 W.P. (L.). No. 777 of 2019

¶22

General Manager, Western Jharia Area, of writ petitioner, to pay full salary minus the subsistence allowance already paid to the respondent workman, Chhotu Ram Mahato from 15.09.2003 to 03.12.2003 only.

¶23

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶25

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 2^nd January, 2024 Smita /AFR

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its General Manager Jitendra Sathua Mahapatra v. Employees in Relation to Their Workman Chhotu Ram Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its General Manager Jitendra Sathua Mahapatra v. Employees in Relation to Their Workman Chhotu Ram Mahto

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

Laxmi Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhumita Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwini Kumar Jha Alias Ashwini Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Prasad And Ors. Vs Laxmikant Mishra And Ors.

MD Maruf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Das And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.