Their Workmen, Represented through the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,through its Secretary, namely Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the OP-UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C. : Mr. Ayush A.C. to A.S.G.I. ------

¶10

06/Dated: 21^st April, 2026

¶11

1. The instant case has been filed under Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties for alleged deliberate and willful non-compliance of the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022.

¶12

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where reference has been answered by passing an award on 25.10.2000, and thereafter the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2013 in W.P.(L) No. 3106 of 2001.

¶13

3. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal to once again decide the issue adducing fresh evidence and consequent thereto a fresh award dated 19.05.2014 was passed in favour of the workmen, but the management has challenged the same in W.P. (S) 6327 of 2014, and

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

2026:JHHC:12264-DB

¶16

in the said petition, the award was set aside vide judgment dated 28.07.2022.

¶17

4. The judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) 6327 of 2014 was challenged by the workmen in L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022.

¶18

5. Thereafter, the Court has passed an order dated 01.02.2024 directing the Tribunal to pass the award afresh within a period of 6 months.

¶19

6. The award having not been passed in pursuance to the order dated 01.02.2024 passed in LPA No. 609 of 2022, therefore, the present contempt was filed.

¶20

7. Learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the Union of India, has submitted that fresh award has been passed on 6^th January, 2026 , copy of the same has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is evident from the order dated 26^th March, 2026.

¶21

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner took time on 26^th March, 2026 to examine the said award and time was allowed for the same.

¶22

9. Today, when the matter was taken up, by referring to the first award dated 25.10.2000 and making it comparison with the first award, it has been submitted that there is no consideration with respect to the factual aspect as has been reflected in the earlier award and totally a new award has been passed without any consideration of the material already available on record in the Reference Case No. 2 of 1993.

¶23

10. Therefore, he has submitted that fresh award cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

2026:JHHC:12264-DB

¶26

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence we are sitting under the jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, being concerned with the fact that no fresh direction can be passed in the contempt proceeding, even though the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is accepted to be correct.

¶27

12. This Court, therefore, is of the view that no direction can be passed herein showing the legality and propriety of the award rather it would be just and proper for the petitioner to ventilate grievance before the appropriate forum.

¶28

13. As such, the instant case being Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 860 of 2025 is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fresh award by filing appropriate application before the appropriate forum.

¶29

14. Accordingly, the instant contempt case being Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 860 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶32

21^st April, 2026 Samarth

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Their Workmen, Represented through the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,through its Secretary, namely v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Their Workmen, Represented through the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,through its Secretary, namely v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Kumar Alias Tarun Vs the Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Gajendra Kumar Vs Putul Singh

Kailash Chandra Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moti Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur Vs Om Prakash Sharma

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand