Rehana Sultan @ Rehana Age 60 years, W/o Late Jamaluddin Khan, R/o House No.6 v. M/s Tata Motors Ltd. through its General Manager
Case Details
2023:JHHC:44563 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No.1702 of 2020 Rehana Sultan @ Rehana Age 60 years, W/o Late Jamaluddin Khan, R/o House No.6, Road No.6, Bari Nagar, P.O. & P.S- Telco, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831004 Petitioner …… Versus M/s Tata Motors Ltd. through its General Manager (HR), P.O & P.S Telco, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum Jharkahand. .……. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Respondent ---------- : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Ishani Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate ----------- CAV Judgment Pronounced on:29.08.2025 This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the Award dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.09/2008 by which the learned Court held that the petitioner is not a „Workman‟ within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is further prayed that respondent may be directed to make payment of the full back wages to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that petitioner being widow of the original workman namely, late Jmaluddin Khan will be entitled to all consequential relief. It is submitted that the original writ petitioner was getting salary of Rs.17,795/-. It is submitted that 1 2023:JHHC:44563 the original petitioner and the witnesses adduced by him has proved that the original petitioner was the workman and hence, he was eligible to participate in the said Industrial Dispute in terms of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court without considering the facts and the circumstances of the reference case and the evidences adduced
Legal Reasoning
by the parties, has wrongly held that the petitioner i.e. workman is not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, therefore, the other issues are not required to be answered as the same would be a redundant legal exercise in futility. It is submitted that the respondents cannot act arbitrarily and against the procedure established under law and in violation of the law of natural justice by terminating the petitioner-workman on the ground which are thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the original petitioner was not holding any power of Managerial or Supervisory and the original petitioner was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 4. It is submitted that the original workman-petitioner was examined as W.W-5 and he had fully supported his case for wrongfully terminating him from the service and the original petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the other witnesses W.W-1, W.W-2, W.W-3 and W.W-4 namely, R.S. Tiwari, Md. Kalimullah, Md. Aslam Ansari, Hari Govind Viswakarma have fully supported the case of the original writ petitioner. It is submitted that nothing was brought on record by the Management-Respondent that the original petitioner (i.e. husband of the petitioner) was working as the Assistant Manager. There was no appointment letter produced before the 2 2023:JHHC:44563 learned Court below with regard to nature of work performed by the original petitioner-workman. However, the learned Labour Court has wrongly passed the Award against the workman and in favour of the Management and hence impugned Award dated 12.07.2019 may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Award passed by the learned Court below is proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the Award has been passed on the basis of appreciation of case of both the sides. It is submitted that the original petitioner was not a „workman‟ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that there is no pleading even in the Written Statement filed by the original-workman (i.e. the original writ petitioner) regarding the work done by him with the Respondent Company. It is submitted that the evidence of workman that his witnesses to the extent that original writ petitioner was getting Rs.17,795/ is not admissible. It is submitted that this is a case of loss of confidence in the workman by the Respondent company and the original petitioner was found committing serious irregularities while he was in job and hence the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court is fit and proper and this writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Perused the LCR and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. The Schedule of the Reference before the learned Court below was as follows:- the
Legal Reasoning
“Whether termination of service of Sri Jamaluddin Khan, Ticket No.6209/09544/1 Asst. Manager for defaulted the Management of Tata Motors Ltd. Jamshedpur is justified. If not, then what relief he is entitled to ?” tyre store of in 3 2023:JHHC:44563 8. It transpires that both the sides had appeared and filed their respective statement. The workman had filed his written statement on 06.04.2009 whereas the Management had filed its Written Statement on 06.04.2009. 9. The workman in support of his case, got examined five (05) witnesses who are as follows:- (i) W.W-1 is R.S Tiwari, (ii) W.W-2 is Md. Kalimullah, (iii) W.W-3 is Md. Aslam Ansari, (iv) W.W-4 is Hari Govind Viswakarma and (v) W.W-5 is workman himself Jamaluddin Khan (i.e. the original writ petitioner). 10. However, no document was filed on behalf of the workman. 11. On the other hand, the Respondent-Management has got examined only one (01) witness namely, Praveen Kumar Kushal. 12. However, no document was marked on behalf of the Management. 13. It transpires that the Management taken the plea in its Written Statement that the petitioner is not the workman and was working in Supervisory capacity. 14. It transpires that the Management had also taken the plea that the original petitioner Jamaluddin Khan was responsible for physical stock verification of tyres and other materials of the store department. It was found that the said Jamaluddin, without actually inwarding of material in the store, had acknowledged the receipt of material in the stock and triggered the SAP system for showing the receiving of material and then the payment was made on the basis of such information. This conduct of the 4 2023:JHHC:44563 employee was deceptive and for which he was properly show caused by the Management. 15. However, the petitioner had taken the plea that he is a workman and he had not conducted any misconduct and his services were all along satisfactory and unblemished but suddenly he was served a charge sheet dated 18.05.2007 disclosing false allegation of misconduct. Even the reply given by the workman petitioner was not considered properly and the Respondent-Management constituted to hold domestic proceeding in utter violation of principles of natural justice and enquiry report is completely illegal and perverse. 16. It transpires that the learned Court below has also observed in para-6 of the impugned Award that the petitioner has challenged the fairness and perversity of domestic enquiry and by detailed order dated 20.06.2013 his earlier predecessor held that the domestic enquiry was conducted properly and did not suffer from perversity. 17. Thus, the learned Court below has fixed the record directly for considering the question of proportionality of punishment under section 11-A of I.D Act and also considered the question of victimization and unfair labour practice to which the workman had taken. 18. It transpires that the Tribunal had framed the points for consideration, as follows:- “(A) Whether the said Sri Jamaluddin Khan was a workman within the terms of I.D Act to have his Industrial Dispute referred to the Court for answer? (B) Whether the plea of victimization and unfair labour practice as pleaded by said Jamaluddin is established to set-aside the order of dismissal under challenge? the punishment awarded by (C) Whether Management was excess in the backdrop of proved 5 2023:JHHC:44563 misconduct requiring any interference by this Court under Section 11-A of I.D. Act independently the plea of victimization and unfair labour practice as taken by the said Jamaluddin Khan?” 19. It transpires that the learned Trial Court below on the basis of evidence of original writ petitioner-Jamaluddin has held that he was not a workman. The learned Labour Court had considered the evidence of the workman Jamaluddin who himself stated that he was an Assistant Manager and the Tribunal has also observed that petitioner had not pleaded anywhere as to what work he was doing. Although, the Court below held that the workman has led his evidence about the work done at the relevant time but the learned Court below also observed that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager as per the case of the Management and held that Jamaluddin (i.e. original writ petitioner) failed to establish himself as a workman within the definition of workman as contained under the provision of I.D. Act. 20. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has not given any finding on the other issues i.e. Issue No. B and C. 21. As the workman has led five witnesses and the learned Court below has not discussed the same on the point of his posting hence this Court has gone through the evidence led by the workman before the learned Labour Court. 22. It further reveals from the enquiry report dated 30.06.2007 submitted by the Enquiry Officer, N. Rama Rao and one N.A Rodrigues and the charges alleged against the petitioner as follows:- “Theft of employees‟ property or theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with Company‟s business or property …… Deceptive or corrupt practices …..” 6 2023:JHHC:44563 23. From perusal of the enquiry report, it reveals that although the original writ petitioner-Jamaluddin Khan was found guilty of charges but at the same time they also observed the role of one Mr. Amarjeet Singh, A.G.M, H.P. Choudhary who had acknowledging shortages in absence of the petitioner Mr. Jamaluddin Khan. 24. W.W-1 is R.S Tiwari who was Ex-employee of Telco has stated that the petitioner and he used to do work in Radiator system and the workman had no connection with Tyre system. He has mainly led his evidence on the point of working of the petitioner. He also stated during his evidence that the Tyres were received in Tyres Stores by Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi and the workman was never involved in preparation of any papers relating to movement of Vehicle inside plant and receiving of Tyres. However, the witness was not cross- examined on the question of receiving of Tyre. 25. It reveals from the evidence of W.W-1-R.S. Tiwari, who is retired employee of Telco at paragraph-4 that there was no computer installed at the Tyre Stores. Hence, for acknowledgement of tyres, the password was given in the name of the Workman i.e. Jamullidin Khan. Although he had stated in para 12 that the tyres were received in the Store by Sri B.N. Pati and Sri S.K. Aich. He also stated that most of the acknowledgement as contained in Exhibit-5 of the enquiry has been done by them and not by the workman. However, the enquiry was not fairly conducted against the Workman and the Management has made him a scapegoat. During cross-examination, he admitted to have mentioned the word password in his evidence and he also admitted to have 7 2023:JHHC:44563 mentioned the word „Password‟ and „LECI‟ on seeing his early statement. 26. W.W-2 is Md. Kallimuddin and who is also ex-employee of Telco and has stated that he used to receive challans and G.I Notes with the material and the senior officers were involved in the Tyre scandal but only junior officers were implicated and punished. He emphasized that the Workman Jamaluddin has been falsely implicated to save the real culprit. He also stated that the Tyres were received by the Supervisor Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi. During cross-examination, he admitted that charge sheet was submitted against the Workman before his termination and he also learnt about the enquiry conducted by the Management but he had not given any evidence in the said enquiry. He is also not aware of the statement of witnesses of the Workman and the evidence of the Workman. Thus, the evidence of W.W-2 is not reliable as he is set up by the Workman to defend himself. 27. Similarly, W.W-3 Md Aslam Ansari also stated that the Tyres were received by Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi and the receipted G.I Notes was sent to their Stores for acknowledgement. He also admitted that password for acknowledgement was issued in the name of the Workman J. Khan (i.e. Jamalluddin Khan). He also tried to state that for convenience of work the password was given to all the employees of the Store. However, the Management has victimized the Workman J. Khan. During cross-examination, he admitted that he is not aware about the contents of the affidavit (i.e. affidavit of W.W-3 filed before the Labour Court) and he has only put his signature. He is 8 2023:JHHC:44563 also not aware of the statement of witnesses of Jamalluddin and also the evidence of Jamulliddin in their enquiry. Thus, the evidence of W.W-3 is not reliable. 28. W.W-4 is Hari Govind Viswakarma, who has stated the same fact which has been stated by W.W-1, W.W-2 and W.W-3. However, during cross-examination, he had shown his ignorance about the proceeding of domestic enquiry. He admitted that S.K. Aich and D.K. Nandi were terminated from the services but B.N Pati had superannuated some days after the occurrence. He also admitted that even R.K. Choudhary and B.L. Sharma working in the Management company were also charge sheeted. Thus, the evidence of W.W-4 is does not appear to be reliable as he is also retired employee and set up by the Workman for his evidence. 29. W.W-5 is the Workman Jamalludin Khan himself. He denied his involvement in the occurrence during his evidence and has tried to deny his liability by stating that he used to work from 7.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and mostly the materials used to be received after 4.00 p.m. He also stated that the Tyres were received by Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi. However, in order to save senior officers, he has been falsely implicated by the Management. He stated that for convenience of work, the password was given to all employees of the Store by the permission of Amarjeet Singh, AGM and the Manager-Sri H.P. Choudhary. He also admitted in para-7 that password for acknowledgement of receiving of Tyre was issued in his name, though he stated that password for acknowledgement was given to all the employees of the Store by the Manager. 9 2023:JHHC:44563 30. Thus, it is absurd to believe that for a specific work the password will be given to all employees. The Workman is silent on the part of his duty and he has tried to shift the responsibility upon the senior officers B.N Pati and others. He had shown his nature of work during his evidence filed on an affidavit rather he has tried to shift the liability upon other employees. 31. However, during examination-in chief, he stated for writing in his affidavit that the charge sheet was time barred. He admitted that Sri S.K. Aich and D.K. Nandi were terminated due to Tyre Scam. He also admitted that police had arrested him though he was not named in the FIR. 32. Thus, the evidence of W.W-5 is merely his defence evident. He has not given any specific instance of his duty being performed in his office. 33. It appears that the Management examined one Enquiry Officer as M.W-1, who merely stated during evidence to be appointed as Enquiry Officer along with one N.A Rodrigues for enquiring charges against the petitioners. He stated that petitioner was working in the Managerial category as an Assistant Manager and he was issued show cause notice and for which the petitioner replied on 22.05.2007 and his explanation is marked as M-1 which reveals that he was Assistant Manager. 34. It transpires that the W.W-1 to W.W-4 had tried to support the case of the petitioner and they have described the procedures for receiving the Tyres, G.I Notes for receiving Tyre section and the Tyres were received by the employees of Tyres Stores namely, Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi. W.W-4 emphatically stated that the password for acknowledgement was given to all the employees of all the Stores by P.K Bhattacharya, Manager but it was issued in the 10 2023:JHHC:44563 name of Jamaulldin Khan-workman and the Jamaulldin Khan has been victimized by the Management to save the main culprit. 35. The Management had cross-examined all W.W-1 to W.W-4 namely, R.S. Tiwari, Md. Kalimullah, Md. Aslam Ansari, Hari Govind Viswakarma respectively, but they have not confronted and disputed the role of persons namely, Sri B.N Pati, Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi disclosed by W.W-4- Hari Govind Viswakarma. 36. It further transpires that W.W-5 was the petitioner Jamaluddin Khan who clearly stated about the entire work system in para-4 to para-9, rather he pointed out the persons responsible in para-15 to 19 of his evidence that even said Sri S.K. Aich and Sri Dilip Nandi have confessed their guilt. Even during cross-examination, he was not confronted by the Management. However, he admitted that Sri S.K. Aich and Sri D.K. Nandi were also terminated from the Management company. He also admitted that he was arrested by the police after his dismissal in the said criminal case but charge sheet was not submitted against him. 37. It appears that reply of the petitioner marked as Exhibit-M-4, reveals that he was working as Assistant Manager. Even the show cause notice Exhibit-M-3 reveals that he was Assistant Manager, which has not been refuted by the writ petitioner. 38. It appears to be a case of theft in the premise of Management-Respondent. However, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he was working as Assistant Manager and as such he was not the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the industrial Dispute Act and his case has rightly 11 2023:JHHC:44563 been rejected by the learned Labour Court and there is no perversity and illegality. 39. Therefore, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by declaring that the petitioner was not a Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 40. Accordingly, the Award dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.09 of 2008 is affirmed. 41. Thus, the W.P.(L) No.1702 of 2020 is, hereby, dismissed. Dated:29.08.2025 Saket/- NAFR (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 12