Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s. Jardine Henderson Limited - Appellant
Versus
Binod Kumar Mishra & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (L) No.835, 1168, 301 of 2016
Decided On : 14-08-2018
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Quash - Claim during pendency - Court Section of Industrial Disputes hereinafter to be referred whereby claim of concerned workmen (respondents herein) has been allowed on contest and petitioner-Management has been directed to pay all dues allowances and other monetary benefits including increment and other benefits arising due to pay revision from time to time on basis of same principles/formula applied towards 30 workmen whose names have been placed in Cont- Case and has further been directed that said computation/calculation should be made from date of retrenchment of workman or superannuation or date of disposal of said cases whichever is earlier along with simple interest thereon from date dues of each month till date of actual payment as well as lump-sum cost of workman –Held, Court exercising powers while latter does not- It cannot be spelt out from award in present case that such a right or benefit has accrued to workman as specific question of relief granted is confined only to reinstatement without stating anything more as to back wages- Hence that relief must be deemed to have been denied for what is claimed but not granted necessarily gets denied in judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding- Further when a question arises as to adjudication of a claim for back wages all relevant circumstances which will have to be gone into are to be considered in a judicious manner- Therefore appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a reference is made- To state that merely upon reinstatement a workman would be entitled under terms of award to all his arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect because several factors will have to be considered as stated earlier to find out whether workman is entitled to back wages at all and to what extent- Therefore we are of view that High Court ought not to have presumed that award of Court for grant of back wages is implied in relief of reinstatement or that award of reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of back wages Court that a proceeding under Section should be treated as an execution proceeding for computing any claim of workman in terms of money when there is a pre-existing right already adjudicated on complaint or on a reference additional claim can be determined under said proceeding- In present case learned Labour Court while deciding monetary claim of respondents-workmen has travelled beyond entitlement of workmen as determined in CWJC which is not permissible scope court of view that there had been a genuine dispute between petitioner-Management and respondents-workmen with regard to fact as to whether settlement arrived at between parties should be considered as full and final settlement of their claim- It is not case of respondents-workmen that they were not paid any amount earlier rather what emerges is that they had taken some amount on pretext of settlement- Moreover workmen were also not prompt enough in agitating their grievance which may be one of reasons for delay in execution of order passed respondents-workmen are entitled for due wages allowances and other monetary benefits including increment and other benefits arising out of pay revision from time to time on same principle/formula upon which petitioner-Management has calculated and paid dues workmen concerned with Cont - Petition disposed
ORDER :
1. The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 10th December, 2015 passed in M.J. Case No.134 of 2010, M.J. Case No.70 of 2010 and M.J. Case No.29 of 2010, respectively, by the Labour Court, Dhanbad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1947’), whereby the claim of the concerned workmen (respondents herein) has been allowed on contest and the petitioner-Management has been directed to pay all the dues, allowances and other monetary benefits, including the increment and other benefits arising due to pay revision from time to time on the basis of same principles/formula applied towards 30 workmen whose names have been placed in Cont. Case (Civil) No.811 of 2003 and has further been directed that the said computation/calculation should be made from the date of retrenchment i.e. 13th January, 1988 till the death of the workman or the date of superannuation or the date of disposal of the said cases whichever is earlier along with simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of dues of each month till the date of actual payment as well as the lump-sum cost of Rs.2,000/- per workman.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner-Management used to have two establishments i.e. Meameco Division of Jardine Henderson Ltd. and Jardine Henderson Victor Ltd. The petitioner-Management applied before the State Government for retrenchment of certain workmen of both of its establishments on 14th November, 1987 under Section 25N of the Act, 1947. Thereafter, on 13th January, 1988 the petitioner retrenched 101 workmen of Meameco Division of Jardine Henderson Ltd. and 22 workmen of Jardine Henderson Victor Ltd. on the basis of deemed permission granted by the State Government, presuming expiry of the statutory period of 60 days.
3. An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the workmen against the said action of the petitioner-Management. The matter was referred by the appropriate government to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and the same was registered as Ref. Case No.05 of 1988. The Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad vide award dated 25th November, 1993 upheld the retrenchment made by the petitioner-Management. The said award was challenged by the Trade Union by filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, being CWJC no.1408 of 1994(R). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23rd August, 2002 in relation to 101 workmen of Meameco Division of Jardine Henderson Ltd. primarily on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 25N of the Act, 1947 with a direction that the said 101 workmen would be entitled for consequential benefits including monetary benefits for which they were entitled under the law. However, the award with respect to 22 workmen of Jardine Henderson Victor Ltd. was upheld.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.577 of 2002, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30th April, 2003 and finally Civil Appeal No.4466 of 2004 filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was also dismissed. In the meantime, out of 101 workmen, a set of 30 workmen filed Cont. Case (Civil) No.811 of 2003, wherein a group of 71 workmen filed an intervention application, which was rejected. During the pendency of the said contempt case, the set of said 30 workmen were paid all the benefits in terms with the order passed in CWJC No.1408 of 1994(R) and the same was, accordingly, disposed of vide order dated 30th March, 2007. Some of the workmen out of the set of 71 workmen filed another contempt case, being Cont. Case (Civil) No.638 of 2007, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17th February, 2009, holding inter alia that no wilful disobedience has been found on the part of the petitioner-Management.
5. Thereafter, 63 workmen o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
