SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Prasad, J.
Tata Steel Limited (Earlier known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited) - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Bir Bahadur - Respondent
W.P.(L) No. 4676 of 2006
Decided On : 29-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management Company in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Judgment dated 21.02.2006 (pronounced on 16.03.2006) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the termination of the concerned workman has been held to be not valid and accordingly direction for payment of wages for seventeen months from the date of his termination till his notional date of superannuation with all consequential benefits has been directed to be paid and/or for issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner-Company and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Workman- Respondent.

3. It reveals from the ordersheet of this Court that though the above writ application was filed in the year 2006 and on 05.09.2006 notice was issued upon the Respondent by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) of this Court, but requisites were not filed for a long period for a fresh notice and finally on 05.09.2007 time was granted to the petitioner to take steps for service of Notice by peremptory order by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshwar Sahay, as His Lordship then was), then the matter was heard in part on 03.08.2010 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pradeep Kumar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, however, it was fixed on 04.08.2010, but the matter was not placed and then it was placed for the first time on 18.06.2019 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. However, the matter was adjourned on 11.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 on the joint prayer of the parties. Even on 24.07.2019 and 20.08.2019 adjournment was taken on behalf of the petitioner and the case was fixed on 29.08.2019. However, the record reveals that thereafter, the case was placed on 08.12.2020 during Covid-19 pandemic period and then on 24.03.2021 this writ petition was admitted by the Co-ordinate bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court, however, Notice was issued upon the sole Respondent although the learned counsel for the Respondent had already appeared on several dates as mentioned above. On 24.03.2021 the Impugned Award dated 21.02.2006 passed in Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 was directed not to be given effect to. Thereafter, the matter was placed on 11.06.2024 before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court and the matter was placed on 01.07.2024, however, on 01.07.2024 the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) recused herself from hearing this writ petition. Thereafter, this matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31.07.2024. On that day the learned counsel for both sides have completed their arguments, however, from going through the records of this case it appears that Lower Court Record was not called for by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court has also not called for the Lower Court Records considering the fact that the petitioner company has enclosed all the documents, which runs from Page 24 to 208. Thus, this Court is not aware as to what happened after 13.09.2002 as even the learned counsel for the petitioner has not enclosed the ordersheet after 13.09.2002 till before passing of the impugned judgment/Award dated 21.02.2006. This Court also remained under the impression that the entire things have been enclosed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition in this case with all the documents, but the ordersheet prior to 13.09.2002 after institution of Reference Case No. 20 of 1995 has not been brought on record and nor the ordersheets after 13.09.2002 have been brought on record. However, in order to pass order this Court did not call for the Lower Court Record as it would not be proper to call for the Lower Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top