Employer In Relation To The ... vs The Workman Represented Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2873 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               WP(L) No. 168 of 2019
                                                 ------

Employer in relation to the Management of Kusunda Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. ..... Petitioner

-Versus-

The Workman represented through Secretary, Bharat Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad. ---- Respondent.

           CORAM:                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                  Through: Video Conferencing.
                                                      -----
            For the petitioner(s):            Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate.
            For the Respodnent:               Mr. H. Waris, Advocate.
                                                      ------
07/12.08.2021:             Heard the counsel for the parties.

In this petition, a prayer has been made to set aside the Award dated 17.1.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 19 of 2012.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that award is cryptic and un-reasoned. He further submits that reference has not yet been answered.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the workman died in harness and thus the compassionate appointment should be granted to the son of the deceased.

After hearing the parties, I find that the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad for adjudication and the terms of reference is as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing employment to Sri Sudharshan Tanti, the dependent son of late Mangru Tanti under the provision of NCWA (after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of death) is fair and justified? To what relief Sri Sudarshan Tanti, dependent son of late Mangru Tanti is entitled to?"

When I go through the award, I find that reference has not been answered. The Tribunal should answer the reference on the materials on record. Whether the compassionate appointment can be granted after 10 years from the death of the deceased, has not been considered considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further the documents, which have been exhibited, have not been considered and discussed by the Tribunal. How the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion, has also not been mentioned in the award. There is no discussion of law or facts in the entire award, which makes the award unreasoned and thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I set aside the impugned award passed in Reference No. 19/2012 to the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and remanded the same for passing a fresh award by giving reasons. Parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and produce documents. The entire process should preferably be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

Anu-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)