Suresh Prasad Singh Son of Sri Bharat Singh, Resident of Mouza v. Bagan Baridih P.S. Sidhgora, Dist
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 2947 of 2011 The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, (presently known as Tata Steel Ltd.) a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai and having its works at Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum (East) through Sri Asit Kumar Verma, son of Late B.N.Verma, R/O C- 7, Gangotri Enclave, Anil Surpath, Uliyan, PO & PS: Kadma, Jamshedpur, Distt- Singhbhum (East) Petitioner … … 1. Suresh Prasad Singh Son of Sri Bharat Singh, Resident of Mouza Versus Bagan Baridih P.S. Sidhgora, Dist- Singhbhum ( East) 2. Durga Nag Son of Sri Thunku Nag, Resident of Sugna Colony, Birsa Nagar P.S. Telco Dist- Singhbhum (East) 3. Mira Devi Wife of Sri B.K. Jha, Resident of Quarter No.4, Ashok Road, Sidgora, P.S. Sidgora, Dist- Singhbum ( East) … … Respondents With W.P.(L) No. 794 of 2012 The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, (presently known as Tata Steel Ltd.) a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai and having its works at Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum (East) through Sri Asit Kumar Verma, son of Late B.N.Verma, R/O C-7, Gangotri Enclave, Anil Surpath, Uliyan, PO & PS: Kadma, Jamshedpur, Distt- Singhbhum (East). Petitioner … … 1. Suresh Prasad Singh Son of Sri Bharat Singh, Resident of Mouza Versus Bagan Baridih P.S. Sidhgora, Dist- Singhbhum ( East) 2. Durga Nag Son of Sri Thunku Nag, Resident of Sugna Colony, Birsa Nagar P.S. Telco Dist- Singhbhum (East) 3. Mira Devi Wife of Sri B.K. Jha, Resident of Quarter No.4, Ashok Road, Sidgora, P.S. Sidgora, Dist- Singhbum ( East) 4. M.K. Jha Son of late Jaya Nand Jha Resident of Baridih Basti Sidgora, P.S. Sidgora District Singhbhum (East) (Deleted vide … Respondents order dated 14.11.24) … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate --- 19/26.11.2024 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same reference being Reference Case No.22 of 1991. W.P.(L) No.2947 of 2011 was filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2011, passed in the aforesaid reference case whereby the learned labour court, Jamshedpur rejected the petition filed by the petitioner dated 19.01.2011. The said petition dated 19.01.2011 was filed by the petitioner praying for time to file additional written statement raising all legal issues as available to the petitioner. The same was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2011 and the matter was directed to be posted for final hearing on 21.03.2011. 3. The writ petition being W.P.(L) No.2947 of 2011 was filed before this Court on 09.06.2011 and in the meantime, the learned labour court proceeded in the matter and passed the final award dated 25.10.2011, which has been impugned in the connected writ petition being W.P.(L) No.794 of 2012. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the case has a chequered history. While referring to the records of W.P.(L) No.2947 of 2011, it has been submitted that a demand was raised by five persons vide letter dated 01.08.1989 claiming themselves to be the employees of Recreation Club, Tisco Tubes Division, Baridih, Jamshedpur and thereafter, notices were issued to the concerned club and upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred for adjudication by the learned labour court, Jamshedpur. The terms of reference are as follows: “1. Whether the workmen of Tisco Tubes Recreation Club, Baridih, Jamshedpur are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits admissible to the workmen of Tisco Welfare Department, Community development Centre hospital, Health Department and Electrical Department? If affirmative, then what pay they are entitled to and from what? 2. Whether the workmen of Tisco Tubes Division Recreation club, Baridih, Jamshedpur should be treated as the workmen of Tisco Tubes Division or not?” 5. The learned counsel submits that TISCO was never noticed at the stage of conciliation and no demand was raised against TISCO, as essentially the demand was in connection to the Recreation Club. After receipt of notice from the learned labour court, the petitioner (TISCO) filed a writ petition being CWJC No.2357 of 1991(R) and challenged the reference itself by saying that it was not maintainable. The said writ petition was decided vide order 19.11.1991 by observing 2 that the contention raised in the writ application can be raised before the Respondent No. 1, who may decide the jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner, and the writ petition was not entertained at that stage. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed their written statement before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in the reference case and stated that the jurisdictional issue may be decided and taken up as a preliminary issue, and the award be pronounced on the basis of the decision on that issue, holding that no industrial dispute existed for adjudication and the reference was incompetent. A written statement was also filed by the concerned workmen, and evidences were led before the Labour Court by both the parties, and an award dated 08.10.1999 was passed. He has submitted that in the reference case, three issues were framed, including point of maintainability of the reference as point no.(i), and the point of maintainability was decided in favour of the writ petitioner, and ultimately, the court having held that the reference was not maintainable, the court did not make any comment or deal with the evidence either oral or documentary adduced on behalf of the parties in connection with point no.(ii) and (iii), and the detailed order was passed only with respect to point no.(i). 7. The said award deciding the preliminary issue in favour of the writ petitioner (management) was challenged by the concerned workmen in CWJC No.1802 of 2000(R) which was decided on 30.07.2008, and the learned counsel has specifically referred to the findings recorded in the writ proceeding and has submitted that the order was passed deciding the entire merits of the case and not merely on preliminary issue which was the only issue decided by the Labour Court and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court to decide the reference on merit on the basis of records already available preferably within a period of six months. 8. He submits that the order passed by the writ court was challenged in LPA No. 359 of 2008. The appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2010. Against the same, the Writ Petitioner- Management went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave 3 Appeal (Civil) No. 14117 of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not disturb the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench remitting the matter to the Labour Court. However, it was observed that the Labour Court, while deciding the matter, shall not be influenced by any observation made by the Hon’ble Single Judge and Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in the orders impugned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed a written statement only on the preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction, on which a specific issue was also framed by the Court as to whether the reference was maintainable. After the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a petition on 19.01.2011 praying for time to file additional written statement. However, the said petition was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2011, by observing that as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the case was to be decided on the basis of materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the labour court has misread and misunderstood the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Labour Court would proceed without being influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in their respective orders. However, the final award was passed whereby only the written statement of the management on the point of jurisdiction was on record as the management vide earlier order dated 01.03.2011 was deprived of filing their written statement on the merit of the case. 11. The learned counsel submits that the management has been ultimately deprived of contesting the case on merits. He has also submitted that if the order dated 01.03.2011 depriving the management of filing their written statement on the merit of the case is found to be perverse, then the natural consequence would be to set aside the final award. He submits that an opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to file the additional written statement and then 4 the matter has to proceed before the learned labour court in accordance with the law. Arguments of the Respondents. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the order dated 08.10.1999 which was passed earlier wherein the preliminary issue was decided reveals that the parties had led the respective evidences on merits of the case as well, and the earlier court had simply decided the case on the preliminary issue and did not decide the point no.(ii) and (iii) as framed. Therefore, the matter was remanded by the writ court in CWJC No.1802 of 2000 (R) with a specific observation that the case has to be decided on the basis of materials already available on record. He submits that on the face of such observation, there was no occasion to file additional written statement or to lead any further evidence by both the parties. The case was to be decided within a short time of six months based on the materials already available on record. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the writ court was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the appeal was dismissed and ultimately the SLP was also dismissed without interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the learned Labour Court. He submits that the order remitting the matter to labour court was not disturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no occasion to lead any further evidence and the case was to be essentially decided on the basis of materials available on record. 13. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has a tendency to linger the matter and they had only filed an application for filing additional written statement on merit, which was just a handwritten application and the same was rejected vide order dated 01.03.2011 by citing reasons. The said order is a well-reasoned order, which does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it does not suffer from any perversity. 14. However, during the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that if the order dated 01.03.2011 is disturbed by this Court, the same will 5 have a direct bearing on the final award. The learned counsel at this stage has also submitted that the concerned workmen have already attained the age of superannuation. Findings of this Court. 15. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the checkered history of the case as narrated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and not disputed by the respondents, this Court finds that the concerned workmen claimed to have been working in Recreation Club of Tube Division, Jamshedpur. It is further not in dispute that the erstwhile Indian Tube Company was taken over by Tata Steel Ltd. in the year 1986 and the dispute was raised on 01.08.1989. It further appears that the dispute was referred for adjudication. The terms of reference have already been quoted above. The petitioner having received notice from the learned court filed writ petition being CWJC No.2357 of 1991(R) questioning the reference itself and this Court was of the view that the preliminary issue with respect to the jurisdiction be decided by the learned Labour Court itself. The operative part of the order passed in CWJC No.2357 of 1991(R) is quoted as under:
Decision
“In view of the fact that the petitioner may raise the contentions raised in this writ application before respondent no.1 who may decides the jurisdictional points raised by the Petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application at this stage. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observation.” 16. It further appears that, on account of jurisdictional issue, the petitioner filed its written statement raising the jurisdictional point and stating that the same be decided as the preliminary issue. It further appears that thereafter the parties lead evidence and the award dated 08.10.1999 was passed and, on account of the jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner, the following three issues were framed, which included the point as to whether the reference itself was maintainable or not. “i) Whether the reference is maintainable? ii) Whether the workmen of Tisco Tubes Recreation Club, Baridih, Jamshedpur are entitled to get pay scale and other benefits admissible to the workmen of Tisco Welfare 6 Department, Community Development Centre Hospital, Health Department and Electrical Department ? If affirmative, then whet pay they are entitled to and from what ?. iii) Whether the workmen of Tisco Tubes Divisions recreation Club, Baridih, Jamshedpur should be treated as the workmen of Tisco Tubes Division or not ?.” 17. The learned Labour Court decided the point No.(i) and recorded its finding in paragraph No.22 as under: “22. On facts and the basis of above discussed circumstances, I came to the conclusion that no industrial dispute as defined u/s 2 (k) of the Act exist or apprehended in between the Tisco Management and the four claimants at the time of making reference. As such the reference is bad and incompetent and the same is not maintainable.” 18. The finding in paragraph No. 22, with regard to point No.(i) revealed that the reference was held to be bad incompetent and not maintainable. Consequently, the learned Labour Court did not proceed to decide the point Nos.(ii) and No.(iii) as framed and observed in paragraph No. 23 as follows: “23. In view of my finding in respect of point no.(i), I do not think just and proper to make any comment or to deal with the evidence either oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties in this connection in respect of point no.(ii) and (iii).” 19. The said award was challenged by the concerned workmen in writ petition being CWJC No.1802 of 2000(R) and this Court passed a detailed order touching upon the merits of the claim of the rival parties vide order dated 30.07.2008 and ultimately vide paragraph No. 17 remitted the matter to the learned Labour Court to decide the reference on merits on the basis of records already available and a time frame of six months was also granted. Paragraph 17 of the order dated 30.07.2008 passed in CWJC No.1802 of 2000(R) is quoted as under: “17. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, dated 8th October, 1999 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to 7 the Labour Court to decide the reference on merits on the basis of the records already available, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.” 20. The LPA was also preferred against the order passed by the writ court, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2010. However, while dismissing the LPA, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed in paragraph no.7 that the appellant (present petitioner) may take all the points that may be available under law before the Labour Court, who will decide the reference after giving full opportunity of hearing to the both the parties. Paragraph no.7 of the order passed in LPA No.359 of 2008 is quoted as under: impugned “7. The therefore, needs no judgment, interference by this Court. However, we observed that the appellant may take all the points that may be available under the law before the Labour Judge, who will decide the reference after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties.” 21. The matter went up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.14117/2010. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order: “We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench affirming the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the Labour Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions as may be available to it in accordance with law before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, while deciding the matter, shall also not be influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned orders.” 22. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly reveals that the order remitting the matter to the Labour Court was not interfered, but at the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed that the Labour Court while deciding the matter shall not be influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge and 8 Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in the order impugned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing the appeal clearly observed that the appellant (petitioner herein) may take all the points that may be available under the law before the Labour Judge, who will decide the reference after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 23. This Court finds that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a petition seeking time to file additional written statement. This was apparently because of the reason that the initial written statement was filed only on the point of preliminary issue of jurisdiction wherein the petitioner had questioned the reference itself, and such preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction was raised pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction, wherein it was clearly observed that the preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction will also be decided by the concerned labour court. 24. This Court finds that while rejecting the said petition seeking to file additional written statement, the learned labour court passed the order dated 01.03.2011 by observing that the learned Single Judge had directed to decide the reference on the basis of records already available within six months. Therefore, apparently the learned labour court was of the view that whatever evidences or materials were already placed on record before the learned labour court were to be considered and nothing further was required to be placed on record. This Court finds that the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the learned labour court is perverse inasmuch as the learned labour court has failed to take into consideration that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly revealed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of remand passed by the learned writ court but the matter on remand was to be decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observations made by the writ court and also the LPA Court. This Court also finds that even the LPA Court, while dismissing the appeal, had observed that it was open to the appellant-petitioner to take all points that may be available under 9 law before the labour court, who was to decide the reference after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 25. The learned Labour court while passing order dated 01.03.2011, has failed to consider that the matter was to be decided without being influenced by any observation made by the leaned Single Judge and one of the observations was that the case was to be decided on the basis of materials already available on record. Having said so, the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 refusing the petitioner to file additional written statement is perverse and it calls for interference. The learned labour court has misread and misunderstood the orders passed by the writ court in CWJC No.1802 of 2000(R) read with the order passed by the appellate court in LPA No. 359 of 2008 and also the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 14117 of 2010 while passing the order dated 01.03.2011 which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner has been deprived of filing additional written statement dealing with the merits of the case. 26. This Court is also of the view that on account of the impugned order dated 01.03.2011, the management has been deprived from contesting the case on merits and what remained in the record from the side of the management was only their point raised on jurisdictional issue. 27. Since the order dated 01.03.2011 which is impugned in W.P.(L) No.2947 of 2011 has been found to be perverse as discussed above, the same is hereby set aside. 28. Consequently, the final award, which has been passed during the pendency of the writ petition [W.P.(L) No.2947 of 2011] and is under challenge in W.P.(L) No.794 of 2012 which is a sequel to the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the final award has been ultimately passed without granting opportunity to the writ petitioner to file their additional written statement on merit. 29. This Court is conscious of the fact that the reference itself is an old reference, but at the same time, the manner in which the learned 10 labour court has proceeded in the matter after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, the final award dated 25.10.2011 is hereby set aside. 30. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the learned Labour Court for fresh consideration. The petitioner to appear before the learned labour court along with their additional written statement on 15.01.2025 at 11.00 am. The respondents shall also appear on the same date and time. 31. Since the reference is very old, the learned labour court is directed to proceed and expeditiously decide the reference in accordance with law after giving due opportunities to both the parties within a period of six months from the aforesaid date of appearance and shall not grant unnecessary adjournments. 32. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 33. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 11