…. Tata Steel Limited (Earlier known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited), a v. 1. Radha Devi W/o Late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh. 2. Shus
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 4637 of 2006 …. Tata Steel Limited (Earlier known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited), 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, Senior Manager, H R & I R – legal, Resident of Cc-7, Gangotri Enclave, Anilsurpath Uliyan P.O & P.S Kadma Jamshedpur, Distt- East Singhbhum ……Petitioner Versus 1. Radha Devi W/o Late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh. 2. Shushil Ranjan Singh 3. Sanjiv Ranjan 4. Samir Ranjan Singh Respondent Nos. 2-4 sons of late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh. All resident of Village Jamapur, P.O. & P.S. Jiradai Dist. Siwan State Bihar ……Respondents -----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.N Roy, Advocate …… 39/05.09.2024 This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner- Company for quashing the Award dated 24.01.2006 passed by Sri Rajesh Dubey, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 39 of 2002, by which the Reference 1 has been answered in favour of the Original Respondent-Workman Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh and the concerned workman was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and was directed to be deemed to be in continuous service. 2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P.A.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, who are the legal and substituted heirs of the Original Respondent-Workman Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh. 3. During the course of argument, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has offered certain terms of settlement to the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and after some consideration, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents have agreed that a sum of Rs. 3.75 Lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand) will be the amount of settlement towards the fulfillment of Award in question apart from the amount earlier received by the Original Respondent- Workmen and his substituted legal heirs in terms of order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice R.K. Merathia as then his Lordship was). 4. On 27.04.2007, the Court had admitted this writ petition by directing that the impugned Award and Judgment shall remain stayed, subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the Petitioner-Company from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e. 18th August, 2006. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-Company has already paid the wages to the tune of approximately Rs.1.77 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven thousand) under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also paid Compensation of Rs. 1.20 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Twenty 2 thousand) under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (i.e. approximately Rs. 3.00 Lakh in total) and the Petitioner Company is ready to pay further Rs. 3.75 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand) towards the full and final settlement of the Award apart from the aforesaid amount of approximately Rs.3.00 Lakh (i.e. 2.97 Lakh) already paid. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, appearing for the substituted legal heir of the original Respondent-workman, submitted that they also received the amount of approximately Rs. 3.00 Lakh (i.e. Rs. 2.97 lakh) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and they are also ready to receive further Rs. 3.75 Lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five thousand) as the final amount toward the full and final settlement of Award in question, however, the Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT may be made in the name of Radha Devi (Respondent No.1), who is the wife of the Original Respondent- Workman. 7. Thus, it is evident from the submission of the learned Senior Counsels for both sides that this case has been settled on the basis of compromise made before this Court. 8. It appears from the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for both the sides that the Petitioner-Company has paid approximately an amount of Rs. 1.77 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven thousand) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has been paid Rs. 1.20 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Twenty thousand) as compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. Thus, from the submission of the parties, it is evident that the Petitioner-Company has paid an amount of Rs. 1.77 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven thousand) towards wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also paid Rs.1.20 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Twenty thousand) under Section 25-F of the Industrial 3 Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. an amount of Rs. 2.97 Lakh (Rs. Two Lakh Ninety Seven thousand) has been paid to the Respondent-Workman. 10. Today learned counsel for both the sides have agreed that apart from the said amount of Rs. 2.97 Lakh (Rupees Two lakh Ninety Seven thousand), the Award may be satisfied by paying further Rs.3.75 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand) in favor of the substituted legal heirs of the original Respondent-workman Late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh 11.
Decision
In view of the above, the impugned Award dated 24.01.2006, passed in Reference Case No. 39 of 2002 by Sri Rajesh Dubey, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement of the workman in service with full back wages, the workman is further entitled to receive Rs. 3.75 Lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand), apart from Rs. 2.97 lakh (i.e. an amount of Rs.1.77 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven thousand)) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and an amount of Rs.1.20 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Twenty thousand) under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which they had already received and Rs. 3.75 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand), instead of reinstatement with full back wages, towards the full and final satisfaction of the impugned Award. 12. Thus, the impugned Award dated 24.01.2006 passed by Sri Rajesh Dubey, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is modified accordingly as mentioned aforesaid. 13. It will be desirable that the said amount of Rs. 3.75 Lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand), as agreed before this Court between the parties today, may be paid to Smt. Radha Devi (Respondent No. 1), who is the wife of the Original Respondent- Workman Late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh in her bank account by way of Demand Draft/NEFT/RTGS in her name by the Petitioner-Company 4 within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of this Order. 14. The learned counsel for the Respondent shall provide the bank account number of Smt. Radha Devi (Respondent No.1) to the learned counsel for the Petitioner within one week from today and learned counsel for the Petitioner may inform the Office of the Petitioner- Company accordingly for payment of said amount of 3.75 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy five thousand) in the name of the Smt. Radha Devi (Respondent No. 1), who is the wife and substituted legal heir of deceased workman Late Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh. 15. Thus, this W.P.(S) No. 4637 of 2006 is allowed with the modification in the Award as indicated above and stands disposed with the aforesaid observation and direction. 16. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the learned Court below and to all concerned and also to the learned counsels for both the sides. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 5th September, 2024 N.A.F.R./Nishant (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 5