Rajendra Prasad Rabidas, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Babunath Chamar, resident of v. The General Manager, Govindpur Area No. III, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sonardih
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (L) No. 6479 of 2022 Rajendra Prasad Rabidas, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Babunath Chamar, resident of Tiwarydih Colony, Govindpur, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand), PIN 828113 Petitioner … … Versus The General Manager, Govindpur Area No. III, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sonardih, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad Respondent (Jharkhand), PIN 828125 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- … … For the Petitioner For the Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate 05/21.06.2023 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “(i) For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and/or setting aside the judgment dated 29th September, 2022 (Annexure-10) passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 15 of 2019, rejecting and disallowing a substantial portion of the relief claimed by the Petitioner in his Petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on erroneous application of the laws on the subject of computation of wages and benefits. (ii) For any other relief(s) which may be incidental or consequential to the above relief and which this Hon’ble Court may consider appropriate may also be granted for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an award was passed in favour of the petitioner in Reference Case No. 114/1995 dated 19.01.2004. The award reads as follows: - “The action of the General Manager Govindpur Area III of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sonardih, Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Rajendra Prasad Rabidas, Security Guard (T), w.e.f. 1.12.92 is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated to his original post with full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.” 4. The learned counsel submits that when the amount was not been paid, petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed before the learned labour court, Dhanbad for payment of arrears of dues to the tune of Rs. 32,90,677.27, but the learned labour court has only partly allowed the amount. As per the 2 learned labour court, it has been held that the back wages with consequential benefits of applicant in terms of award includes his variable dearness allowance, fix dearness allowance, special dearness allowance, but it does not include house rent, travelling allowance, bonus, profit sharing bonus, washing allowance, leave encashment amount, long leave travel concession, leave travel concession and it has also been held that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) and pension amount. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the management witness had deposed that the contribution of the petitioner towards CMPF was also calculated and a total amount of Rs. 7,26,105/- was deposited in CMPF head, out of which contribution of workman was Rs. 1,56,319 and the same amount was the contribution of Management also, so it was the case of the Management that the entire amount was already paid to CMPF. 6. The learned counsel submits that the pension amount is dependable on the CMPF amount. The learned counsel submits that ultimately, the petitioner has been found entitled for an amount of Rs. 18,67,774.31 only and the Management has been directed to make payment within a period of 30 days. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The amount of CMPF has already been deposited by the management before the concerned authority and the petitioner will have to make the claim from the concerned authority. So far as the pension is concerned, the same will also ultimately depend upon the claim of CMPF. 8. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent be directed to processed the application of the petitioner regarding CMPF/Pension, so that the petitioner does not suffer any more on account of non-receipt of payment, to which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 9. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that an award was passed in favour of the petitioner reinstating the 3 petitioner with full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned labour court, which was numbered as M.J. Case No. 15/2019 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming an amount of Rs. 32,91,540.75, which included the amount of CMPF/pension also. 10. Both the parties participated in the proceedings before the learned labour court and the learned labour court ultimately passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 and partly allowed the claim only to the extent of Rs. 14,92,839.71 as basic, Rs. 3,37,873.61 as VDA, Rs. 10,269.36 as FDA, Rs. 26,791.63 as SDA i.e., total Rs. 18,67,774.31, but on account of dispute, the learned labour court held that it did not include HR, TR, Bonus, PSB, WA, Leave Encashment amount, LLTC and LTC and also held that the court lack jurisdiction to decide the claim of CMPF and pension amount. 11. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the Management certain amount has been deposited before the CMPF in connection with contribution amount and ultimately, same has to be paid through CMPF. 12. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has rightly held that the amount of CMPF/Pension was not computable by the learned court below under the provisions of Section 33C(2) as there are special provisions for computation of the said amount and accordingly, the application seeking payment of CMPF and pension was rightly held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the learned labour court under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. So far as the other heads are concerned, the same stood disputed by the respondents on the ground that the same was dependent upon the actual performance of duty which required adjudication. This court if of the considered view that the learned court below rightly declined to enter into computation of the amounts under the heads which required adjudication as the same was apparently beyond the scope of consideration under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4 14. This Court finds that the impugned order passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a well-reasoned order and has been passed within the scope of jurisdiction of the learned labour court under the said provision. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and accordingly, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has also submitted that the application of the petitioner be processed by the respondent regarding payment of CMPF and pension amount, to which the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, it is sufficient to observe that if the petitioner files his application before the respondent regarding processing his application for payment of CMPF/pension, the respondent shall do the needful within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such request, so that the amount which the petitioner is otherwise entitled in law, is remitted to the
Decision
petitioner at the earliest. 16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)