Sri. Vinod Rabidas vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1318 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(L) No. 4825 of 2021
       1.Sri. Vinod Rabidas, S/o Late Panu Rabidas
       2.Sri Dilip Kumar Modak, S/o Late Hari Modak.
       3.Raj Kumar Rabidas, S/o Late Panu Rabidas.
       4.Dinesh Kumar Basphore, S/o Prem Lal Basphore
       5.Sri Ramesh Rabidas, S/o Late Golak Rabidas
                                                            .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
       The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                        .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                                       ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO [Through :- Video Conferencing] .........

       For the Petitioner                      : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate
       For the respondents/State               : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG.II
                                                 ......

07/ 01.04.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, learned counsel has submitted, that petitioners, 1.Sri. Vinod Rabidas, S/o Late Panu Rabidas, 2.Sri Dilip Kumar Modak, S/o Late Hari Modak.3.Raj Kumar Rabidas, S/o Late Panu Rabidas. 4.Dinesh Kumar Basphore, S/o Prem Lal Basphore and 5.Sri Ramesh Rabidas, S/o Late Golak Rabidas have preferred the instant Writ Petition for setting aside the judgment dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in I.D. Case No.02/2015.

Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, learned counsel has submitted, that an application under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by the petitioners for reinstatement along with payment of full back-wages and other consequential benefits. The petitioners have claimed that they have worked for M/s Patliputra Medical College and Hospital (in short referred as PMCH), Dhanbad as Ward servant/ Sweeper for long 25 years and they were working against the sanctioned and vacant posts and after completion of 240 days, in a calendar year, having good records, their services have not been regularized by the Respondent- Management though they were on vacant and sanctioned posts.

Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG.II for the State has submitted that these petitioners earlier came before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. [S] No. 6058 of 2012. Thereafter the petitioners have filed such application though certain documents have been brought and marked as Exhibits in this case, but no document has been brought on record with regard to advertisement issued for appointment on sanctioned and vacant posts. No letter of appointment has been issued nor any document with regard to salary has been produced by the petitioners so as to

establish that the petitioners were regularly appointed on vacant and sanctioned posts, in accordance with law, for long 25 years or completed 240 days in a calendar year. They were never appointed on vacant and sanctioned posts, rather it has been found by the learned Labour Court that A.W.1 (Binod Ravi Das) has submitted before the Court, that he was appointed on a vacant and sanctioned post by virtue of appointment letter, but the said appointment letter has been misplaced. So far A.W.2 (Raj Kumar Ravi Das) is concerned, he has categorically stated that he does not understand the meaning of sanctioned post. No advertisement was published in the Newspaper and no call letter had been received by him for Interview in the year 1991 and on oral direction, appointment was made by the Principal. A.W.3 (Dilip Kumar Modak) has submitted that they were appointed orally and no written order had been given for appointment.

Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG.II for the State has thus, submitted that this Court has limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so far the Award/Judgment/ Order passed by learned Labour Court is concerned. No infirmity or illegality has been pointed out in the impugned judgment by the petitioners to admit the instant Writ Petition, as such, the instant Writ Petition may be dismissed.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence discussed by the learned court below, which is contrary to their own pleading, as such, in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to proper appointment of the petitioners on vacant and sanctioned post, in accordance with law, as no paper publication was made and the appointment was made, as per requirement, but not on regular basis. The appointment was not made by the competent authority holding any interview or issuing any appointment letter, rather the same has been made by the oral order, as per the requirement. As such, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/