Dilmohan Mahato Vs M/S Tata Steel Long Produce Limited, (Now Tata Steel Limited) — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dilmohan Mahato Vs M/S Tata Steel Long Produce Limited, (Now Tata Steel Limited) — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021; remittance of the matter to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, with a direction to dispose of the said I.D. Case on merit, subject to the condition that the workman shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.08.2024 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, dismissing I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021 for non-prosecution, should be quashed and set aside.

Court's answer

The contention of the respondent's counsel that the petitioner should have sought restoration before the concerned Labour Court would hardly make much difference, because after restoration the case will either be restored or, if not restored, the litigation will be further enlarged.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 30.08.2024, passed in I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The instant writ application is pertly [sic: partly] allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, with a direction to dispose of the I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021 on merit.ratio¶21
It is made clear that the workman shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Disputes — dismissal of I.D. Case for non-prosecution — workman's writ petition under W.P.(L). No. 6791 of 2025 challenging order dated 30.08.2024 of Labour Court, Jamshedpur dismissing I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021 (instituted under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) on the ground that the workman had no interest to proceed — petitioner's advocate had stopped taking steps in the case from 21.05.2024 onwards, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution — Management's written statement had already been filed on 30.09.2022 — Management contended petitioner should first have sought restoration before the Labour Court — Court held such contention would hardly make a difference, as restoration would either revive the case or merely enlarge litigation — since the case had not been decided on merit and the petitioner is a workman, the dismissal order dated 30.08.2024 was quashed and set aside; writ application pertly [sic] allowed and matter remitted to Labour Court, Jamshedpur for disposal of the I.D. Case on merit, with the caution that the workman shall not take unnecessary adjournments. (Deepak Roshan, J.; decided 19.01.2026.)

2026:JHHC:1345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(L). No. 6791 of 2025

Dilmohan Mahato, son of late Sanatan Mahato, resident of Murup Panchayat, Murup, P.O. Murup, P.S. Burudih, District SeraikellaKharsawan. ………. Petitioner

Versus

M/s. Tata Steel Long Produce Limited (now Tata Steel Limited), registered office and works at Gamaharia, P.O. and P.S. Gamaharia, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, through Head HRM Legal & Rehabilitation ………. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate ----------

03/ 19.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.08.2024, passed in I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021, by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the said I.D. Case on the ground that workman has no interest to proceed this case furthermore.

3. From para-13 of the writ application it appears that the Advocate of petitioner has stopped taking any steps in the I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021 from 21.05.2024 onwards due to which vide order dated 30.08.2024, the case was dismissed for nonprosecution.

4. From the pleadings, it further transpires that the said I.D. Case was filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondent-Management has also appeared and filed its written statement on 30.09.2022; however, since the case has not been decided on merit and the petitioner is a workman, interest of justice would suffice by quashing the order dated 30.08.2024.

5. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner should have filed restoration application before the

1

2026:JHHC:1345

concerned Labour Court.

6. The said contention would hardly make much difference for the reason that after restoration also the case will be restored or if not restored it will further enlarge the litigation.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the order dated 30.08.2024, passed in I.D. Case No. 02 of 2021, is hereby, quashed and set aside.

8. Accordingly, the instant application is pertly allowed. The matter is remitted to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur with a direction to dispose of the said I.D. Case on merit.

9. However, it is made clear that the workman shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

19^th January, 2026 Kunal/Uploaded on 29/01/2026

2