Ramesh Kumar, son of Binda Prasad Gupta, aged about 44 years, resident of Ward v. 1. The Management, Central Bank of India, through its Managing Director
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 1251 of 2022 Ramesh Kumar, son of Binda Prasad Gupta, aged about 44 years, resident of Ward No. 11, Gauri Shankar Middle School, P.O. Motihari, P.S. Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Management, Central Bank of India, through its Managing Director Shri M.V. Rao son of not known to the petitioner, resident of Central Bank of India, Chandermukhi, P.O. Nariman Point, P.S. Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai, 400021. 2. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagwan Chowk, P.O. Muzaffarpur, P.S. Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, P.O. Patna, P.S. … Respondents Patna, District Patna, Bihar. --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- For the Respondents For the Petitioner … 12/03.12.2024 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This petition has been filed for challenging the award dated 19.01.2021 passed in Reference No. 22 of 2014 by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad whereby the termination of the concerned workman has been found to be in violation of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, but instead of reinstatement and other benefits, lump sum of monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded to the concerned workman namely Ramesh Kumar. 3. learned counsel for The the petitioner representing the concerned workman has submitted that the impugned award is perverse and once the violation of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act was established, the learned court ought to have awarded reinstatement with back wages and the reason for denial of back wages is that the termination was of the year 2000 and about 20 years 1 have elapsed. He submits that such a reason is not a sound reason. The learned counsel has further submitted that the reference was initially made on 13.10.2006 which was numbered as reference No. 61 of 2006 and the dispute was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2. However, certain allegation was made and consequently the case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 and the reference was modified with respect to court who has adjudicate the dispute. The fresh reference case was numbered as Reference Case No. 22 of 2014 which has been decided by the impugned award. 4. The learned counsel submits that earlier the award was passed in favour of the workman which was dated 06.04.2015 but the management instead of complying with the said award challenge the same before this Court and upon remand the fresh order has been passed. He submits that had the management complied with the earlier award dated 06.04.2015, the petitioner would have been reinstated although in the said award there was no direction of granting of back wages but only an order of reinstatement was passed. He has referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1284 [ Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat] to submit that in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately granted back wages for a period of two years immediately preceding i.e from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022. He submits that in the said case, it was observed that had the management chosen to accept the verdict, the concerned workman would not have waited for long years to get fruits of the verdict. 5. While giving the foundational background, he submits that it is not in dispute that the concerned workman was employed as daily wage peon from 26.07.1999 and he was discontinued with effect from 13.05.2000 and the dispute was initially referred for adjudication on 18.09.2006. 6. The learned counsel appearing behalf of the respondents while opposing the payer has submitted that there is no illegality or 2 perversity in the impugned award. He has further submitted that the workman has worked as daily wage peon for a very short period and as per the case of the workman itself he worked for 293 days only. 7. The learned counsel submits that the reference was itself made after expiry of six years and the matter remained pending for the reason beyond control of the respondents. The earlier order was set aside by this Court and therefore, no reliance can be placed on that order to claim that the management could have reinstated at that point of time and the impugned order in the present case has been passed only on 31.07.2020 giving monetary compensation. 8. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgment