Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Ravi Ranjan, JJ.
Renu Kumari, D/o. Late Shiva Kant Jha - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 723 of 2019 with I.A. No. 2718 of 2022
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Condonation of Delay - Labour Dispute - Rule 7 C of the ‘Works Standing Order’ - [Rule 7 C of the ‘Works Standing Order’] - The court allowed the condonation of delay of 177 days in filing the instant appeal, finding that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The original writ petitioner, Shiva Kant Jha, was in the employment of respondent-company since 1959 and retired in 1988. The case revolved around the employment of the petitioner's dependent-daughter, Renu Devi, as per the company's rule of providing employment to dependents after 25 years of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dependent-daughter had crossed the age limit for recruitment and had failed the suitability test for the job, leading to the refusal to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the dependent-daughter to employment and the refusal to interfere with the Award by the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the dependent-daughter had crossed the age limit for recruitment and had failed the suitability test for the job, leading to the refusal to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no case for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal or the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 2718 of 2022
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. As prayed for, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make necessary correction in course of the day with respect to quantum of delay as there is difference in between such quantum in paragraph 1 and prayer portion of the Interlocutory Application and as per the stamp report it should be 177 days.
3. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 177 days in filing the instant appeal.
4. No counter affidavit to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
5. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2718 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 177 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No. 723 of 2019
7. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against order/judgment dated 27.08.2019 in W.P. (L) No. 670 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with Award dated 26.05.2012 passed in Reference Case No. 09 of 2010 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, by which, the reference has been answered against the petitioner for appointment on the basis of dependency.
8. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated reads as hereunder:
The original writ petitioner, namely, Shiva Kant Jha was in the employment of respondent-company since 1959 and retired from service w.e.f. 30.12.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation.
It is the case of the petitioner that as per the rule of respondents-company the employee, who has completed 25 years of continuous service, was entitled to keep one of his dependant in the dependent register and employment is to be provided to such dependent, as and when vacancy arises or work is available. As per scheme floated by the company, the name of dependent-daughter, namely, Renu Devi was entered in dependent register. Accordingly, her case was considered for employment and she was asked to appear in the examination for ascertaining the suitability for the job. She appeared in the Examination conducted in the year 1992-93 but failed as such her case was not considered for employment.
Being aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner raised a dispute which culminated to reference being Reference Case No. 9 of 2010 which was answered against the workman thereby employment to dependent-daughter was denied.
Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of this grievance by filing writ petition being in W.P. (L) No. 670 of 2013.
The learned Single Judge, considering the fact that dependent-daughter, namely, Renu Devi had crossed the age of 50 years while passing the Award as such reference was answered in negative vide Award dated 26.05.2012 and as of now, the dependent-daughter has crossed the age of superannuation, did not interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed.
9. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the factual aspect in right prospective, has declined to interfere with the Award taking into consideration the fact that on the date when the Award was passed the dependent-daughter, namely, Renu Devi, had crossed the age of 50 years, but if there is any delay in conclusion of the Industrial Dispute for which the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer and as such on this ground alone, since the same has not been considered by learned Single Judge, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is fit to be quash
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the award is limited to cases of perversity of finding or when the award is based on erroneous evid....
The date of birth recorded in Form B is conclusive evidence to determine the age of the workman, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited in reviewing fi....
The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can only be challenged if it suffers from perversity or there is a jurisdictional error.
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and findings of fact reached by the tribunal cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceeding....
The delay and laches in seeking appointment on compassionate ground, and the lapse of 30 years since the employee's death, barred the claimant from entitlement to such appointment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a workman's reinstatement under a tripartite settlement does not necessarily deprive the workman of the right to claim regularization, especia....
Nomenclature of the petition or the nature of relief sought for is not the only determining factor, but the nature of power available to be invoked before the High Court is one such important guiding....
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
