Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The vs Their Workmen Namely on 16 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(L) No. 4460 of 2013
........
Employers in relation to the
Management of Pundi Project
through Ajay Kumar Singh .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workmen namely, Satya Narayan Singh
and Ram Parikha Dusadh represented by the Secretary,
United Coal Workers Union, Kuju Area, Hazaribagh
.... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
........
08/16.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das.
The writ petition has been filed by Employers in relation to the
Management of Pundi Project through Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Late
Matukdhari Singh, Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, P.O.
& P.S. - Kuju, District - Hazaribagh for quashing the award dated
11.06.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 62/1994.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred para-5 and onwards
of the Award to impress upon the court that Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No. I has held in para-6 that the domestic
enquiry was held to be fair and proper by order dated 27.09.1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that it is a
case of theft of 11,620 detonators from the store where the respondent
Satya Narayan Singh and Ram Parikha Dusadh, represented by Secretary,
United Coal Workers Union, Kuju Area, P.O. & P.S. - Kuju, District -
Hazaribag were deployed as Security Guard. The workmen have not
adduced any evidence even then in such type of cases, the learned
Tribunal, even after holding the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper,
has passed an order for setting aside the order of termination directing the
petitioner / Management to pass the order with regard to reinstatement in
service with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits and also for
continuity of service from the date of termination of their services.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the case of
M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Another others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 21, Paras-17 & 18 may be taken note of, though the
Labour Court, even after holding the domestic enquiry to be fair and
proper, can interfere by taking recourse under Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act with regard to quantum of punishment, but the
learned Tribunal has passed order of reinstatement with 50% back wages,
which is erroneous in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of M.L. Singla (Supra).
Under the aforesaid circumstances, let notice be issued upon
respondent in main application as well as in all the interlocutory
applications i.e. I.A. No. 7807/2013, I.A. No. 1084/2014, I.A. No.
7516/2017 and I.A. No. 1230/2020, under both process, i.e. under
registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which
requisites etc., must be filed within two weeks.
Put up this case after service of notice.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
