Food Corporation of India, a Statutory body constituted by and under a statute called v. Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Late Baidyanath Singh, resident of At + P.O.-Rajopatti, Near
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 3336 of 2016 --------- Food Corporation of India, a Statutory body constituted by and under a statute called the Food Corporations Act, 1964, through its General Manager (Region), Shri Amaresh Kumar, Son of Sri Ranjeet Singh working in the Regional Office at Arunachal Bhawan, Exhibition Road, P.O., P.S. and District Patna (Bihar) ..… Petitioner Versus Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Late Baidyanath Singh, resident of At + P.O.-Rajopatti, Near Telephone Exchange, Dumra Road, Sitamarhi, District- ….. Respondent Sitamarhi, State-Bihar ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioner ---------- : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr.Advocate Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate --------- ORAL JUDGMENT IN COURT 13/16.08.2024 Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Manjushri Patra, learned counsel, assisted by Ms. Mahua Palit, learned counsels on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This writ petition is being taken up separately today with the consent of both sides from the Batch cases of other writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(L) No. 3969 of 2018, W.P.(L) No. 3965 of 2018, W.P.(L) No.3970 of 2018 and W.P.(L) No. 2123 of 2016 respectively, as the matter relates to the definition of ‘Workman’. 1 3. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the Award dated 12.06.2015 (i.e. Annexure-8), passed by Shri Ranjan Kumar Sharan, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-1, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 08 of 2014, by which the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay with the cumulative effect passed in a Disciplinary proceeding has been set aside and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of passing the Order of Punishment dated 31.03.2014, the Respondent-Workman-Ajay Kumar Singh was working on the post of AG-I(D) (although the learned Tribunal has mentioned the date of the penalty order as 03.01.2014, which appears to be a typographical mistake). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent was not a ‘Workman’ within the meaning of the Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this has been decided in the judgment in the case of Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (Quality Control), Shushil Tirkey Vs. Kumar Madan Mohan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1164 and has submitted that against the order of penalty the Respondent will be at liberty to file appeal before the Executive Director (East), Food 2 Corporation of India, Zonal Office (East), Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photocopy of judgment of Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (Quality Control), Shushil Tirkey Vs. Kumar Madan Mohan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1164. It is submitted that the above judgment has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 22595/2023 on 17.10.2023 and hence, the impugned Award may be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent has opposed and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the Respondent-Workman fairly submitted that the Court below has not considered the working status of the Respondent and which is also subsequently considered by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of that concerned Workman Kumar Madan Mohan. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the Respondent-Workman had preferred Complaint Case No. 08/2014 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the Order of penalty dated 31st March, 2014 passed by the General Manager (R), Patna. 3 8. It transpires that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad has set aside the order of penalty on the ground that without taking permission from the Tribunal, the Management has passed the penalty order dated 03.01.2014 (which is actually a typographical error as the penalty order has been passed on 31.3.2014). 9. It also appears that the Respondent was working as A.G.I. (D) [i.e. Assistant Grade I (D)] at the relevant time and his case is similar to the case of the concerned Workman-Kumar Madan Mohan. 10. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (Quality Control), Shushil Tirkey Vs. Kumar Madan Mohan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1164, at Para 37 and 38 as follows:- “Para 37:-Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the work assigned to Assistant Grade-1 (D), in which the respondent was working at the relevant point of time, through the circular dated 30.10.1996, this Court has not doubt that the appellant was working in the supervisory capacity and was assigned the work of supervision and control over the Assistant Grade-II (D) and Assistant Grade-III (D) while performing their duties. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view 4 that the respondent cannot said to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act. Para 38:-In view of the finding of this Court that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.09.2016 deciding the preliminary issue as well as the impugned final award cannot be sustained in the eye of Law and accordingly, they are set -aside.” 11. It appears that the above judgment was challenged by the said Respondent-Workman in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 22595/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 17.10.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Web copy of the said order is being produced before this Court during the course of argument, which reads as follows:- “We see no reason to entertain the present Special Leave Petition, the same is accordingly, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
Decision
disposed of.” 13. In view of the judgment in Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (Quality Control), Shushil Tirkey Vs. Kumar Madan Mohan reported in 2023 SCC 5 OnLine Jhar 1164 and also the Order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 22595/2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned Award dated 12.06.2015 (i.e. Annexure-8), passed by Shri Ranjan Kumar Sharan, learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-1, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 08 of 2014 is set aside with the liberty to the Respondent Workman to prefer the appeal before the Executive Director (East), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (East), Kolkata under Staff Regulation, 1971 within Ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order. 14. Thus, this Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of with the above direction. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 16th August, 2024 N.A.F.R./s.m. 6