Employer In Relation To The ... vs Their Workmen
2022 Latest Caselaw 1983 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (L) No. 6327 of 2014
                         ........

Employer in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Coal Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd.

                                       ....    ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
Their Workmen, represented through

the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Rajrappa, Hazaribagh .... ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, Advocate ........

09/13.05.2022.

Learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has submitted, that he is appearing on behalf of petitioner on the instruction of learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Das, who has been granted power by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari.

Learned counsel, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush has submitted, that in case of reinstatement, application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable or maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Their Workmen being represented by Shri B.N. Singh, Addl. General Secretary, National Coal Workers Congress, Hirapur, District - Dhanbad & Anr. reported in 2004 (1) JLJR 398. Para-5 of the aforesaid judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"5. Section 17B of the Act has application when the award is one for reinstatement of a workman and the employer prefers any proceeding against such an award in the High Court or the Supreme Court. On the wording of Section 17B, it can have application only when the award is one for reinstatement and not in any other case. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, the Court must understand the purport of the statutory provision based on the language used by the statute. This is the fundamental principle of interpretation and the other aids can be resorted to only when the words of Section 17B are not plain or are ambiguous. From a reading of the section, there cannot be any doubt that it applies to a case of reinstatement.

'Reinstatement' in industrial jurisprudence is a well known concept and is an unambiguous reinstatement, the High Court does not get jurisdiction under Section 17B of the Act to pass an order under that provision. Normally, the court is not entitled to enlarge the scope of a provision when the provision is intended to cover the very situation envisaged by the statute. In fact, this Court has held in the judgment in L.P.A. No. 9/2003 that Section 17B has no application in a case where the award did not order reinstatement."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that similar is the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Employers in Relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery of Central Coalfields Limited V. Their Workmen, Represented through the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union reported in 2010 (4) JCR 64. Para-13 of the said judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"13. As noticed above, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is in respect of the regularization of service and not for reinstatement after setting aside the order of termination of service. It was not the case of the workman that his service was terminated rather during the pendency of the conciliation proceeding before the Labour Court, the Management stopped taking any work from the concerned workman. Having regard to the fact, it is evidently clear that the Tribunal passed an award for regularization of service which was the actual dispute referred to the Tribunal. In that view of the matter the scope of Section 17B of the Act cannot be enlarged on assumption that service of the workman was terminated while the matter was pending before the Labour Court for conciliation. In our considered opinion, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is against the spirit and object of the provisions of Section 17B of the Act. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that since the case is not of termination, rather it is a case of regularization, the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato has submitted, that he has not gone through both the aforesaid judgments, as such, matter may be adjourned for today and has placed one judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Another Vs. Ghanshyam in Case No. Appeal (Civil) No. 3731 of 2001.

Considering the same, parties are directed to exchange their judgments and assist this Court after Summer Vacation.

Put up this case after Summer Vacation on Interlocutory Applications.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-