Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H. C. MISHRA, J.
K.N. Mukhopadhyay - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P (Cr.) No. 382 of 2004 with I.A Nos.95 & 2360 of 2007, 482 of 2005, 1296 of 2014
Decided On : 09.1.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
For the State : J.C to G.P-II
The court emphasized the need for the Competent Court to consider the satisfaction of awards and the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and held that it cannot interfere in such matters.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Quashing of I.D Case No.16 of 2002 - Section 29
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash I.D Case No.16 of 2002 filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for non-implementation of an award. The petitioner argued that the award was vague and not fully implemented by the management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award had not been fully satisfied by the management, as evidenced by the order passed by the court directing the management to pay arrears to the concerned workmen. The court also noted the petitioner's statement that the amount payable to certain workmen was ready for deposit if directed by the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the implementation of the award, the petitioner's readiness to deposit amounts for certain workmen, and the jurisdiction of the court to interfere in the application filed for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it cannot become the Executing Court for execution of awards and that the Competent Court should consider whether the offence is made out and whether the award has been satisfied in its entirety. The court also noted that the award, passed in 1982, had not been fully implemented up to 2014.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in quashing the application filed in the Competent Court for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in spite of repeated calls.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the I.D Case No.16 of 2002 filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for non-implementation of the award dated 26.4.1982 passed in Reference No. 30 of 1980 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad.
3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the State represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad-III, had filed the I.D Case No.16 of 2002 against the then Chairman and Managing Director and the other officers of M/s BCCL Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad, in which, the petitioner, being the Company Secretary of B.C.C.L., was also made an accused. The said complaint was filed alleging non-implementation of the award dated 26.4.1982 in Reference Case No. 30 of 1980, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in respect of workmen of D & F Rope-ways, merged with M/s BCCL, wherein, the Tribunal held that the workmen of D & F Rope-ways were entitled to the same benefits and scale of pay as provided in Ext.W-4 read with Ext.W-13, in Reference Case No. 30 of 1980. The petitioner has challenged the very filing of the said I.D Case No. 16 of 2002 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and has prayed for quashing the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award itself is vague and not very specific and even the respondents were not fully aware whether the award had been implemented or not by the B.C.C.L., and accordingly, it is a fit case for quashing the entire I.D Case No. 16 of 2002.
5. It appears from the record that during the pendency of this application, several I.As have been filed by the concerned workmen, alleging that the award had not been implemented, whereupon steps were taken during the pendency of this application in this Court, for implementation of the award.
6. Lastly, by Order No. 27 dated 20.12.2013, this Court passed an order, relevant portion of which is as follows :-
“Admittedly in Reference Case No. 30 of 1980, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred as 'CGIT') has given an award, which runs as follows:-
“For the reason given above by M/s BCCL to the workmen of the J&K Ropeways of former Coal Board the demand of the workmen of D and F Ropeways which merged with M/s BCCL is justified. The workmen of D and F Ropeways, therefore, are entitled to the same benefits and scale of pay as provided in Ext.W-4 read with Ext.W-13. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances there will be no order for costs.”
It is also an admitted position that part of the award has been implemented by regularizing the workmen of D & F Ropeways in monthly time scale w.e.f. March, 2000. It is also an admitted position that after March, 2000, the concerned workmen have been paid their salaries and other allowances legally admissible to them. It is also an admitted position that the concerned workmen are entitled to get the benefit of the award w.e.f. 01.04.1975, but the Management of BCCL has not given that benefit to the workmen concerned because there is some confusion regarding the fixation of salary and determination of arrears of the workmen.
Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the BCCL submits that now the amounts which workmen are entitled have been determined by the Chartered Accountant namely M/s P.S. Kesari & Company, Dhanbad.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the dispute between the parties can be resolved if the BCCL Management pay the arrears to the workmen and / or their legal representative w.e.f. 01.04.1975 till date as determined by the Chartered Accountant M/s P.S. Kesari & Company, Dhanbad. Accordingly, I direct Management of BCCL (Pe
