Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Raghunath Balmiki & Others) and has submitted that in the said case also there
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 7084 of 2019 Chief Manager (Mining)/Project Officer, Govindpur Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, through Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, Project Officer, Govindpur Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., resident of At & P.O. & P.S. Sonardih, District Dhanbad, PIN 826125 Petitioner … … Versus 1. Smt. Muni @ Mani Kamin, W/o Nepal Bouri (Deleted vide order dated 06.09.2023) 1(a) Bablu Bouri, S/o late Smt. Muni @ Mani Kamin, and Late Nepal Bouri, R/o village Jamua, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, PIN 826125 … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondent 13/30th September 2024 --- --- : Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 06 of 2012 whereby the learned labour court has allowed the application filed under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has directed for payment of arrears of back wages from 19.09.1983 to 30.06.2011 within 60 days from the date of passing of the order failing which the petitioner would liable to pay the said amount along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the said 60 days till its actual payment. The learned court has directed the petitioner to calculate the admissible amount to be paid to the workman and deduct the amount which has already been paid to the workman, if any, in lieu of wages. 1 Arguments of the petitioner 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned award has submitted that there was serious dispute in connection with identification of the respondent-workman. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 177 (Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Raghunath Balmiki & Others) and has submitted that in the said case also there was a dispute in connection with identity of the concerned workman and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the workman concerned to appear directly before the Management and produce the evidence in the proforma for identification purposes. The learned counsel submits that the proforma said to be filled up by the workman was not properly filled up and many columns remained blank. It is submitted that the workman had produced the photocopy of the format which was marked as X-12 for identification. The learned counsel submits that the identification of the respondent-workman having not been duly
Decision
proved, the impugned judgment is perverse and it calls for interference. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the learned labour court, Dhanbad has not properly considered the materials on record while passing the impugned judgment in favour of the workman. He submits that the provisions of Section 33C (2) of the Act of 1947 does not empower the labour court to pass an order with regard to interest. He has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 6969 of 2017 dated 19.06.2023 to submit that the interest could have been awarded by the learned labour court. The amount under Section 33C (2) of the Act of 1947 is recoverable by way of certificate proceedings and there is a provision of statutory interest in the certificate proceedings. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that otherwise also, the impugned judgment calls for interference as the learned labour court has not quantified the amount which was to be paid. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 1647 of 2019 dated 24.07.2024 and has referred to paragraph 16 thereof to submit that a duty is cast upon the 2 labour court to quantify the payable amount and it is also open for the court to appoint a Commissioner for the purposes of calculation of wages payable in terms of the order passed under Section 33C (2) of the Act of 1947. Arguments of the respondent-workman 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman while opposing the prayer has submitted that the identity of the respondent-workman was duly proved and finding has been recorded by the learned labour court by referring to the materials on record. He has submitted that even if the proforma was not fully filled up, but it was accompanied with an affidavit which was also produced for identification as the originals were already submitted to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the award arising out of reference was already passed and the case was only for the purposes of computation of wages. The Management could have also produced their own records to substantiate that the facts disclosed by the workman were not true as per their available records but no such evidence was led by the Management. He has submitted that two documents were produced in original and were marked exhibit, one was Exhibit -1 which was a letter dated 31.10.2000 issued to the workman which was the interview letter and the Exhibit-2 was the response which was filed by the workman before the Management. The learned counsel submits that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment as the materials brought on record were taken into consideration. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the judgment reported in (1999) 1 SCC 177 (supra) is concerned, the same was arising out of a different award and the petitioner having been issued letter to fill up the form, the same was filled up and was submitted along with the affidavit. He submits that in the present case the materials produced were enough to prove the identity of the workman. He also submits that the respondent had herself appeared and deposed before the Court. The learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the written statement filed by the Management, the computation which was furnished by the workman was not in dispute and the 3 impugned judgment has been passed in terms of the computation provided by the respondent workman. 9. So far as the award of interest is concerned, the learned counsel submits that he has nothing to say. He does not dispute that Section 3C (2) of the Act of 1947 does not provide for awarding interest and the amount payable is recoverable by way of a certificate proceeding. Rejoinder argument of the petitioner 10. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the reply filed before the learned labour court, it was submitted that the statement made in Form K-3 was not correct and the petitioner had challenge the calculation. Findings of this Court 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the industrial dispute regarding claim of regularization was referred by central government which was registered as Reference Case No. 68 of 1983 and ultimately, the award was passed on 28.02.1989 which was subject matter of challenge and attained finality by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) No. CC 3483/1998 on 20.04.1998. Thereafter, a criminal case was instituted on account of non- implementation of the award and cognizance was taken under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on 20.07.2000, the petitioner had issued notices calling upon the awardees to submit their identification in the prescribed format for implementation of the award. 12. In the meantime, a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed before this court being Cri. Misc. Case No. 8786 of 1999 (R) for quashing the order taking cognizance relating to the allegation of non-implementation of award. Upon dismissal of the case, the matter travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr) No. 3546 of 2008. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter was disposed of as the Management had submitted that they had deposited entire disputed amount before the concerned Tribunal. 4 13. A report has been received from the Tribunal pursuant to order passed by this Court which reveals that though 08 cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each was deposited but ultimately when the notice was issued to the Union, none of the workmen turned up and the cheques have not been enchased. Consequently, it can be safely said that no money said to have been deposited by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ultimately gone out of the pocket of the petitioner as the cheques have already expired. 14. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 before the learned labour court which was numbered as M.J. Case No. 06 of 2012 for computation of wages in terms of the award and claimed that the applicant was entitled for an amount of Rs. 33,65,646.33. 15. This Court finds that the petitioner had filed its response by way of written statement-cum-rejoinder and disputed the identity of the respondent- workman and has also disputed the quantum of computation which was furnished by the applicant. It further appears that the Management could not furnish its own calculation. Apart from disputing the computation, no computation was furnished by the Management. 16. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that altogether two witnesses were examined from the side of the applicant, one was the applicant herself and another was one Satish Prasad Mandal, the Union representative of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union. A number of documents were produced including the letter No. 1255 dated 31.10.2000 issued by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager and addressed to the applicant and a representation dated 04.01.2012 submitted by the applicant and addressed to the General Manager, Govindpur Area No. III. These documents were marked as Exhibit 1 and 2 and so far as the other documents are concerned, they were marked X series right from X to X-15 which were photocopies of various documents. The document X-12 was the photocopy of the format said to have been filled up and signed by the applicant and X-13 was the photocopy of an affidavit sworn by the 5 applicant before notary public at Dhanbad as Bond-cum-Declaration. These documents were said to have been submitted to the Management. 17. This Court finds that so far as the Management is concerned, only one witness was examined and a stand was taken that the Management had requested the applicant to submit the necessary information by filling the prescribed format on repeated occasion but the same was not done within 15 days and the Management had deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- with respect to each workman before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad. He had no knowledge that in compliance of the spot verification the concerned workmen were identified. 18. This Court finds that the Management, apart from denying the identity of the applicant, did not produce any of their own records with respect to the identity of the actual person who had worked with them. The proceeding involved in the present case was a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 wherein the fact that the workman, namely, Smt. Muni @ Mani Kamin had worked with the petitioner was not in dispute. 19. This Court further finds that the learned court has considered the materials on record vide paragraph 7 and has come to a finding that there was no latches on the part of the applicant and the plea of the Management was not sustained. It was also held that the applicant had submitted proforma (marked as X-12) in compliance of letter issued by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Govindpur. The findings with regard to the aforesaid is at paragraph 7 which is quoted as under: - “……………..Whereas it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that after receiving of the letter dated 5/6-01-2000 (Marked as X-11) issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Govindpur Area,. The applicant has submitted a pro-forma duly filled and signed by the applicant along with the photograph. An affidavit/Bond-cum-Declaration sworn by applicant Muni @ Mani Kamin before the Notary Public, Dhanbad. Thereafter an interview letter dated 31/12/2000 (Ext. 1) was issued in the signature of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager fixing the date for interview of six concerned workmen which are the awardee of Ref. 68/83. The applicant has submitted the pro-forma (marked as X-12) in 6 compliance of letter issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Govindur, which shows that the applicant adopted the co-operative approach for implementation of the said award. On perusal of these documents it appears that there is no latch on the part of the applicant. So, the plea taken on behalf of the management is not sustainable in the eye of law.” 20. This Court finds that the learned labour court has considered the materials with respect to the identity and has returned a finding based on the materials produced before the Court. There is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences produced before the learned labour court to come to a different finding in writ proceedings in absence of any perversity. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner that the respondent was unable to prove her identity does not call for any interference as the said finding is based on appreciation of materials placed on record. 21. So far as the computation of the amount is concerned, the operative portion of the award although does not give the exact quantum but it indicates that the applicant would be entitled for the back wages as claimed in the annexures to the claim petition. 22. This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner did not file their own computation and the petitioner simply denied the computation. In such circumstances, the amount of the award is a quantified award though referable to the annexures to the claim petition which contains the quantified claim. The learned court also directed to calculate the admissible amount after deducting the amount already paid although there is no evidence from the side of the petitioner regarding any amount paid to the workman. 23. So far as the award of interest is concerned, this Court finds that the same is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 6969/2017 decided on 19.06.2023 wherein this Court has held that the learned Labour Court/industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct payment of interest over and above the quantified amount payable under section 33 (c ) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the amount so computed is recoverable through certificate proceedings and in case the amount is sought to 7 be recovered through certificate proceedings , the statutory interest , as applicable to the certificate proceedings will be payable in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid judgement, the direction of the learned labour court to pay interest @ 6% cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly such direction is set-aside. So far as the remaining portion of the award is concerned, the same requires no interference. 24. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms . 25. 26. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 8