Jharkhand High Court
Their Workman Represented By ... vs Management Of Mineral Area ... on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 326 of 2021
------
Their Workman represented by Himself Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
Management of Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad through its
Managing Director, Dhanbad ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
03/17.03.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents through video conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with
regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today
at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity
and quality.
2. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
award dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad
in Ref. No. 01 of 2003 is absolutely bad. He submits that no dispute award has
been given only on the basis of a statement given by the Advocate of the
Workman to the fact that he has no instruction nor he knows the whereabouts of
the workman. He submits that once a reference has been made, the same has
to be answered by the court and mechanically a no dispute award cannot be
passed.
3. Mr. Rupesh Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Mineral Area
Development Authority, submits that it is the workman who has failed to appear
before the Court and thus the Labour Court has no other option than to pass the
award of no dispute. He further submits that notices were also issued but inspite
of that workman did not appear.
4. A dispute between the workman and the Management by the Government
of Jharkhand in terms of Section 10 (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act was referred.
The terms of reference is as under.
"Whether the dismissal of Shri Om Prakash, Switch Board
Operator, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad
is justified? If not what relief he is entitled to?"
5. Thereafter, on 28.03.2019, I find that the Labour Court, on the statement of
the counsel appearing on behalf of the workman to the effect that he has no
instruction nor he knows the whereabouts of the workman, passed the award
holding that no dispute remains between the parties. Parties are not interested to
contest with the instant case further.
6. Concerned lawyer made statement before the Court that he has no
instruction nor he knows the whereabouts of the workman so he is withdrawing
from the case. Further from the impugned award, I find that notices were issued
to the workman but he was not found. On these grounds the impugned award of
no dispute has been passed.
7. Section 2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines an award, which reads
as under:-
"award" means an interim or a final determination of any
industrial dispute or of any question relation thereto by
any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National
Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award
made under Section 10 A"
8. To constitute an award there must be determination of the dispute which has
been referred. The Labour Court has to adjudicate the dispute and answer the
reference either in favour of the workman or against the workman.
9. The issue of no dispute award has been considered by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in W.P. (L) No. 5706 of 2015. After considering the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Coordinate Bench held that if there is no adjudication
of any dispute, the said award cannot be said to be an award in terms of the
Industrial Disputes Act. This Court feels that this case is also covered by the said
judgment. Since the dispute has not been decided nor the reference has been
answered, which is the mandate of law, I am inclined to set aside the award dated
28.03.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Ref. No.
01 of 2003. Matter is remanded to the Labour Court to pass an appropriate award
after adjudicating the dispute and answering the reference. As a consequence of
setting aside the award dated 28.03.2019, the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in
Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020, by which the petition filed by the petitioner to recall
the impugned award dated 28.03.2019 has been dismissed, is also hereby set
aside.
10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Kumar/ Rajnish (ANANDA SEN, J.)
