General Manager, Eastern Jharia Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bhowra, P.S v. … … Narain Gosai, Son of Late Kedar Gosain, resident of Manaitand, Kumharpatti, P.O
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (L) No. 2744 of 2019 General Manager, Eastern Jharia Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad, through Sri Phool Kumar Dubey, son of Late G.R. Dubey, General Manager, E.J. Area, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Jorapokhar, P.O. & P.S. Petitioner Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad Versus … … Narain Gosai, Son of Late Kedar Gosain, resident of Manaitand, Kumharpatti, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad, PIN 826001 … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Gautam, Advocate 08/03.05.2023 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “For quashing of the Judgment dated 21.6.2018 passed by Sri Virendra Kumar Tiwari, the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M. J. Case No. 9/2016 (Annexure-6); whereby and whereunder the said learned court has been pleased to allow the application filed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’) and has directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,53,237/- for the period 12.10.1987 to 5.1.1996 together with cost. AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. “ Arguments of the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the challenge to the impugned order has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 and the notice was issued only on the limited point with regard to the direction issued by the impugned order regarding payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 1,53,237/- being 50% of the back wages relating to the period from 12.10.1987 to 05.01.1996. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,53,237/- has already been deposited before the learned Executing Court. 2 4. The learned counsel submits that the workman was dismissed from service in the year 1987 and an award of reinstatement was passed in the year 1992 with full back wages. The award was challenged in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1220/1993 (R). The said writ petition was dismissed on 02.06.2003 against which the Management filed appeal being L.P.A. No. 457/2003 and the appeal was partly allowed by only granting relief to the workman to the extent of payment of 50% back wages. The learned counsel submits that L.P.A. was decided on 08.12.2011. 5. He submits that there is no direction in L.P.A. order to give any interest on 50% back wages to the petitioner. He submits that after expiry of about five years from the judgment passed in L.P.A., the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) being M.J. Case No. 09/2016 asking the learned labour court for payment of the amount which was determined by the L.P.A. Court. He submits that there was no prayer for payment of interest, still the learned court below has passed a direction for payment of interest on 50% back wages. The learned counsel submits that as per the award, a direction for payment of interest @ 6% per annum from 12.10.1987 to 05.01.1996 i.e., 8 years 2 month 23 days has been passed and it has also been directed that if the payment is not made within 60 days from the date of the award, the interest would be @ 9% from the expiry of 60 days till the date of actual payment. Further a lump sum cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 20, 000/- has also been directed to be paid. 6. It is not in dispute that so far as the amount of Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, which is the cost of litigation, the same is required to be paid, but so far as the interest is concerned, it is the subject-matter of dispute as on today. Arguments of the Respondent -workman 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has submitted that the learned court below has exercised the power in the interest of justice and the fact remains that the workman was deprived of the back wages for the period from 12.10.1987 to 05.01.1996 for no fault 3 on his part. He has also submitted that the workman was made to run from pillar to post in order to have justice. 8. It is not in dispute even from the side of the respondent- workman, that so far as the order passed in L.P.A. court is concerned, there was no direction for payment of interest. It is not in dispute that after 05.01.1996, the workman was taken back from service. Findings of this court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the aforesaid narration of facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the challenge to the award attained finality by passing final order in L.P.A. No. 457/2003 which was partly allowed on 08.12.2011 and the workman was found entitled for the back wages to the extent of 50%. Admittedly, no direction was issued by this Court to pay any interest on the said amount. After expiry of about five years, the workman filed M. J. Case No. 09/2016 primarily based on the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 457/2003 and in the petition filed before the learned court below also, admittedly, there was no prayer for grant of any interest. 10. This Court is of the considered view that once the L.P.A. Court did not grant any interest to the workman, there was no scope for the workman to make any prayer for interest and rightly no such prayer for grant of interest was made. However, the learned tribunal has passed order giving direction of payment of 50% of back wages to the tune of Rs. 1,53,237/- and further with interest for the period from 12.10.1987 to 05.01.1996. This Court is of the considered view that when there was no direction for payment of interest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 457/2003 while granting 50 % back wages, there was no occasion for the learned labour court to pass any direction for payment of interest for the aforesaid period from 12.10.1987 to 05.01.1996. This is over and above the fact that no prayer was made by the workman regarding payment of any interest in the petition seeking payment of 50% back wages. 4 11. So far as the direction for payment of the back wages to the tune of Rs. 1,53,237/- is concerned, the challenge to the same has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023. 12. This Court finds that there is no question of payment of any interest on the amount of 50% back wages as no such direction was passed in the L.P.A. Accordingly, direction passed by the learned labour court, directing the petitioner to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of 50% back wages, is perverse and calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, such direction for payment of interest on back wages, is hereby set-aside. 13. So far as the amount of cost is concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the amount of cost awarded to the respondent and therefore, the direction for making payment of cost to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- is upheld. 14. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid cost of Rs. 20,000/- before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from the date of uploading of this order. 15. It is not in dispute that Rs. 1,53,237/- has already been deposited before the learned labour court. The amount of Rs. 1,53,237/- as well as the cost of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be
Decision
disbursed in favour of the workman after due identification. 16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 17. 18. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned labour court Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. through ‘FAX’. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)