The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 340 of 2019 1. Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, having its Office at Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO. & PS: Bokaro Steel City, District: Bokaro through A.K. Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager (Law), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, resident of Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS: Bokaro City, District: Bokaro 2. Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS: Bokaro City, District: Bokaro 3. General Manager ( Personnel & Administration), Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS: Bokaro Steel City, District: Bokaro 4. Junior Manager (Personnel-Works), Sinter Plant, Bokaro Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS: Bokaro Steel City, District: Bokaro ... Appellants Versus Ajay Kumar, son of Late Amrit Prasad, resident of Quarter No. 2096, Street No. 51, Sector-VIII/D, PO: Sector VIII, PS: Bokaro Steel City, District: Bokaro … Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate :Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate -----
Decision
ORDER 17th July 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Bokaro Steel Plant ( in short, 'BSP') to challenge the order dated 28th March 2019 passed in WPS No. 1265 of 2011. 2. Initially the writ petitioner who was regular employee under the BSP had approached this Court in WPS No. 6652 of 2002 which has been disposed of vide order dated 30th June 2008 in the following terms: “ 02. 30.06.2008 After hearing some arguments of both the sides, counsel for the petitioner wishes to quantify his further demand as indicated in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. This court cannot go into it in a writ jurisdiction and, thus, he is at liberty to move a representation before the General Manager ( Personal), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, who will dispose of the same by way of speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation. This writ petition is, accordingly disposed of without any order as to cost.” 3. The writ petitioner who faced the departmental inquiry pursuant to charge memo dated 25th September 1986 was dismissed from service by an order dated 22nd July 1987. The aforesaid order of dismissal from service 2 LPA No. 340 of 2019 was challenged by the writ petitioner which has been adjudicated by the Labour Court at Bokaro in Reference Case No. 24 of 1989. The Labour Court has found the order of dismissal from service unjustified and, accordingly, made the award dated 22nd December 1999 of reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The records would reveal that a settlement at the instance of the workman was arrived at between the parties on 6th March 2001. 4. The settlement dated 6th March 2001 is in the following terms: “ According to this settlement, the person concerned now shall be A) Reinstated. B) Entitled to the following benefits w.e.f. the date of his dismissal, i.e. July 22, 1987, to the date of this settlement, i.e. March 6, 2001:- i) 50% ( fifty percent) of the total financial benefit in terms of back wages. ii) Other consequential benefits as admissible in the case of re- employment. The person concerned hereby undertakes that except whatever benefits he is given hereunder, he shall not raise any claim whatsoever in respect of his back wages and other consequential benefits in future.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this was the settlement in the aforementioned terms which was put to challenge by the workman in WPS No. 6652 of 2002. Now even assuming that the workman was aggrieved of some of the terms of the settlement dated 6 th March 2001, this is a matter of record that the writ Court did not grant any indulgence in the matter and dispose of WPS No. 6652 of 2002 leaving the workman with a liberty to move the General Manager (Personnel) of the BSP who in compliance of the writ Court's order has passed the order dated 6th March 2001. 6. In the order dated 4th October 2008, the General Manager ( P &A) of the BSP has dealt with representation moved by the workman availing of the liberty given to him by the writ Court, in the following manner: I have gone through the representation of Shri Ajay Kumar, “ 1. Staff no. 641531. Operative, Sinter Plant (E) received in BSL on 25.07.2008. In his representation Shri Ajoy Kumar has enclosed the order dated 30.06.2008 of Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand wherein it has been directed to dispose his representation by way of a speaking order of GM (Personnel), Bokaro Steel Plant. Shri Ajoy Kumar in his representation has requested for payment of rest fifty percent backwages and other consequential benefits which was not paid to him and he has further claimed an interest @ 18% on the unpaid amount. 2. I have gone through the entire case of Shri Ajoy Kumar, I find 3 LPA No. 340 of 2019 that Shri Ajov Kumar was dismissed from the services of the company vide order dated 22.07.87 for unauthorised absence. Subsequently Shri Ajoy Kumar raised an industrial dispute which was adjudicated by Ld. Labour Court, BS City under Ref. Case no. 24/89. The Ld. Labour Court answered the reference in the favour of the workman vide its award pronounced on July 22nd, 2000 and directed the management to reinstate the workman with full backwages and other consequential benefits. The Shri Ajoy Kumar approached the management vide his application dated December 26, 2000 expressing his desire to mutually settle the terms of implementation of award. Accordingly, on 06.03.01 an out of court settlement was arrived at between the representative of Management of SAIL/ Bokaro Steel Plant and the workman Shri Ajoy Kumar on the following terms: (a) Reinstatement of Shri Ajoy Kumar, Staff no. 641531, Operative of Sinter Plant department. (b) Shri Ajoy Kumar shall be entitled to the following benefits w.e.f. the date of his dismissal i.e., July 22, 1987 to the date of his settlement i.e., March 6, 2001. (i) 50% (fifty percent) of the total financial benefits in terms of backwages. (ii) Other consequential benefits as admissible in the case of re-employment. 3. I find that in the said memorandum of settlement the workman has undertaken that he shall not raise any claim whatsoever in respect of his backwages and other consequential benefits in future except what he was given through the said settlement. 4. I find that Office Order vide no. Pers/IR/OOC12/2001-1283 dated 12.06.2001 of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant was issued for implementation in compliance of memorandum of settlement dated 06.03.01 and thereby Shri Ajoy Kumar was reinstated in S-10 grade in Sinter Plant of Bokaro Plant. Shri Ajoy Kumar assumed his duty on 20.06.2001. 1 further find that vide Office Order no. Pers/WSP/2001-613 5. dated 23.07.2001 pay fixation order was issued allowing Shri Ajoy Kumar 50% back wages and other consequential benefits as per the terms of settlement. Now, in deference to the order dated 30.06.2008 of Hon'ble 6. High Court, Jharkhand I am of the opinion that memorandum of settlement dated 06.03.01 has been implemented in true letter and spirit and therefore, and there is nothing due to Shri Ajoy Kumar with respect to the award pronounced on July 22, 2000 in Ref. Case no. 24/89. 7. Therefore, the representation of Shri Ajoy Kumar is hereby disposed off as he is not entitled for any benefits as claimed by him in his aforesaid representation dated 25.07.2008. 8. Shri Ajoy Kumar may accordingly be communicated.” 7. Section 2(p) and section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 read as under: “2(p) “settlement” means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.” “18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.—(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding 4 LPA No. 340 of 2019 shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration. (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section 3-A of section 10-A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on— (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.” 8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited” (1991) 1 SCC 4 a, settlement arrived at between the parties shall be binding on the parties under the circumstances mentioned therein. 9. However, the writ Court has held that a workman cannot be deprived of service-linked benefit which shall accrue to him on his reinstatement in service. 10. The writ Court has held as under: “... …. … From material available on record, it appears that the settlement has arrived between the parties wherein although the petitioner has been reinstated in the service but he has been allowed only 50% of the back wages and other consequential benefits in terms of as is admissible in the case of re-employment. In the case of re-employment, the petitioner will lose all the benefits who has accrued to him on account of his past service. Snatching benefit is totally unreasonable on the part of the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner has been reinstated, so consequential benefits should be in terms of reinstatement not in terms of re- employment. In view of above facts, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed only to the limited extent that the petitioner will be entitled for other consequential benefits as if he has been reinstated not reemployed. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed.” 11. In the first place, the writ Court was denuded of its power to go into the question of unequal bargain or legality in the terms of settlement dated 6th March 2001. Merely because a liberty was given to the workman to move representation the writ petitioner could not have challenged the 5 LPA No. 340 of 2019 legality of the settlement dated 6th March 2001 in the second round of litigation. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, the impugned order dated 28th March 2019 passed in WPS No. 1265 of 2011 is set-aside and, accordingly, LPA No. 340 of 2019 is allowed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court Ranchi Dated 17th July 2023 Sharda/SB/-NAFR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)