Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gaya, Bihar v. Rajendra Prasad, son of late Aklu Baitha, resident of Gewal, Bigha Khagaria T
Case Details
1 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 2869 of 2016 Employers in relation to the Management of Food Corporation of India, through Shri Vikash Krishna, son of Sri Yogendra Prasad Yogi, working at District Office, Gaya, Permanand Niketan, North Church Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gaya, Bihar .... Petitioner Versus Rajendra Prasad, son of late Aklu Baitha, resident of Gewal, Bigha Khagaria Tola, P.O.- Rampur, P.S.- Rampur, Dist.- Gaya, State- Bihar …. Respondent P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties.
Decision
The writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside of the Award dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.179 of 1997, whereby and where under, the petitioner has been directed to regularize the services of the respondent-workman against a regular post at once without giving any back wages with a rider that if the Award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of 2 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 Award in the Gazette of India, and the Management did not pray time to implement the same Award, the Management shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 31st day of publication of the Award, towards compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent-workman claimed to have been employed by the petitioner-Management at Food Storage Depot at Chandauti (Gaya) between 01.10.1981 to 31.07.1989 as a casual employee and he had been stopped from working by verbal orders w.e.f. 01.08.1989 and as such, respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. However, said dispute was refused to be referred for adjudication by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide its order dated 14.01.1993. Thereafter, writ petition being CWJC No. 2049 of 1995 was filed by the workman before the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the Hon’ble Patna High Court quashed the order dated 14.01.1993 vide its order dated 04.03.1997 and directed the Union of India to refer the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. 4. In compliance of the said order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in CWJC No. 2049 of 1995, the following reference was made: “ (i)Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna in not regularizing the service of Shri. Rajendra Prasad, Ex- Casual Employee of FCI, Chandauti (Gaya) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?” 5. Upon receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. No. 179 of 1997 and both the Management and the Workman filed their written statement, rejoinder, etc. 3 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter, vide Award dated 01.05.2015 directed petitioner-Management to regularize the services of the respondent-workman at once against a regular post without giving any back wages and consequential reliefs as already mentioned in the Judgment. 7. Mr. Pandey Neeeraj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent- workman submits at the outset that as the workman has reached the age of superannuation at the time of Award itself and as such, for the ends of justice, it would be better if the Management offers one time settlement to the workman. In this regard, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Askhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr., reported in 2016 (1) SCC 521 as also the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (L) No.2870 of 2016 dated 03.09.2020 and submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner-Management to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs), as the Award of learned Tribunal was passed in the year, 2015 itself, wherein it was clearly held that if the Award is not implemented within one month from the date of publication of Award in the Gazette of India, and the Management did not pray for time to implement the Award, the Management shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 31st day of publication of the Award, towards compensation and taking this into consideration the said facts, compensation amount comes to 4 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs) after lapse of 5 years, as nothing has been paid to the workman as yet. 8. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner- Management assisted by Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and submits that the respondent-workman is neither entitled for regularization of his services nor any compensation as he was not the employee of the Management and he has worked continuously under the Contractor. However, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2020, the Management is ready to sort out the dispute by giving a lump sum amount to the workman and if any reasonable amount is fixed by this Court, the Management is ready to pay the same. 9. Be that as it may, since the parties are ready to sort out the dispute by way of one time settlement, it would be appropriate for the ends of justice to devise way for amicable settlement in fixing reasonable amount of compensation. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Askhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr., (supra), paragraph nos. 17, 18 & 19 of which reads as under:- “17. The respondents were merely casual workers and they do not have any vested right to be regularized against the posts. The High Court fell in error in affirming the award passed by the Labour Court directing and circumstances of the case, as the respondents were out of employment for more than twenty years and now they are overaged and cannot seek for regular appointment, in our view, the interest of justice will be regularization. facts the In 5 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 subserved if the judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent by directing payment of monetary compensation for the damages to the respondents. 18. In considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010 ) 9 SCC 126 and after referring to the various decisions, this Court held that the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice and it reads as under: (SCC pp 127-128, para 2-4) …….. 19. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is modified and keeping in view the fact that the respondents are facing hardship on account of pending litigation for more than two decades and the fact that some of the respondents are overaged and thus have lost the opportunity to get a job elsewhere, interest of justice would be met by pay directing compensation of Rs. Four lakhs to each of the respondents. ….” appellant University the to 10. In view of the fact that the workman-respondent has worked for almost 9 years, even the management failed to prove that the concerned workman was not the employee of the Management and not a single penny has been paid to him from the date of Award, the impugned Award is modified to the extent that respondent-workman is entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- only as one time settlement. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner-management to pay the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as one time settlement to the respondent-workman. The said amount shall be paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid within the aforesaid time frame, it will carry simple interest of 10 percent per annum. 6 W.P. (L) No.2869 of 2016 12. 13. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back to concerned court below along with a copy of this Judgment. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, all the pending interlocutory applications are disposed of being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th September, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)