Bokaro … v. Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, “Ispat Bhawan”, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 202 of 2020 Collector Mishra aged about 66 years, son of Lakhi Mishra, resident of village: Jenamore, P.O:- Jaridih, P.S.: Jaridih, District: Bokaro … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, “Ispat Bhawan”, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist: Bokaro … … Respondent/ Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondent --- : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate --- Order No. 10/Dated: 27th July 2023 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01st August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 3939 of 2013, whereby the award dated 13.03.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 09 of 1999 has been set-aside holding that the termination of the appellant from services of the respondent was in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has directed for payment of compensation of
Legal Reasoning
Rs. 1,00,000/- only within two months. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned writ Court regarding payment of consequential relief only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- and is claiming full back wages with all consequential benefits with effect from 07.06.1985 to 2014 (year attaining age of superannuation) and also all retiral benefits treating his date of superannuation to be in the year 2014. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the termination was held to be not justified, the workman was entitled to all consequential reliefs and therefore the impugned order by which compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only has been provided, calls for interference. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant having superannuated, cannot be reinstated, but he is entitled 2 L.P.A. No. 202 of 2020 for retiral benefits. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgements: - (i) (2013) 10 SCC 324 (Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others) (ii) (2014) 10 SCC 301 (Raghubir Singh -vs- General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar) (iii) (2006) 5 SCC 446 (G. M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat &Others) 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned writ Court has held that the termination of the services of the appellant was in violation of provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel submits that in spite of such finding by the learned writ Court, reinstatement is not automatic and at best, the appellant is entitled for compensation. The learned counsel submits that the learned writ Court has already directed payment of due compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore the impugned judgement does not call for any interference. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in: - (i) (ii)