Jharkhand High Court
Shib Shankar Prasad vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. A ... on 13 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4368 of 2014
Shib Shankar Prasad, Son of Late Bhuneshwar Prasad, Resident of
Village-Koyaridih, P.O. & P.S. Sonardih, District Dhanbad
(Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. a subsidiary of Coal India Limited
having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S.
Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, P.O.
Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
3. Director Personnel, BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar,
Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd.
Govindpur Area, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad
5. The Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Akashkinari
Colliery, Katrasgarh, P.O. & P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad
6. The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad, P.O.,
P.S. & District - Dhanbad ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Adv.
---
07/13.09.2022
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)
to immediately and forthwith pay and release the
following retiral benefits of the Petitioner including the
pension and which are as under:
(a) Pension
(b) Arrears of pension from the date of superannuation i.e.
01.10.2013
(c) The entire Provident Fund amount
(d) The leave salary/encashment amount
All the aforesaid amount to be paid along with statutory
and penal rate of interest from the date of superannuation
of the Petitioner i.e. 01.10.2013 till the date of actual
payment.
And/Or
The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate
or suitable direction or command upon the Respondent
Authorities to release his salary and back wages for the
period from June 1992 till May 2011 (minus the
allowances paid under 17 (B) of the Industrial Dispute
Act) during which the Petitioner has been forced to sit
idle/prevented from working for no fault of his and only
because the Respondents had chosen to challenge the
Award of reinstatement of the Petitioner passed in
Reference No. 33 of 1987 by way of Appeal before this
Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3433/1992 and L.P.A. No.
551/2002 wherein also they had lost.
And/Or
The Petitioner prays for passing of such other
order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was abruptly stopped from working as back as in the year 1973 and
thereafter in Reference Case No. 33/1987 decided on 14.05.1992, a
direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner as General Mazdoor in
Category-I within one month from the date of publication of the
Award. The respondents did not implement the award. Respondents
filed appeal before the tribunal and thereafter when the appeal was
dismissed, a writ petition was filed being C.W.J.C. No. 3433 of 1992
(R). The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 17(B) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner
vide order dated 15.07.1993. However, the writ petition being
C.W.J.C. No. 3433 of 1992 (R) was ultimately dismissed vide order
dated 05.09.2002. The order of the learned writ court was challenged
before the Hon'ble Division Bench which was also dismissed vide
order dated 13.05.2010 in L.P.A. No. 551/2002.
4. The learned counsel submits that the reinstatement of the
petitioner was made without back wages. He also submits that since
the award was passed on 14.05.1992, the petitioner will not be entitled
to back wages to any period prior to the same, but so far as the period
post 14.05.1992 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for all reliefs as
it was the respondents who did not implement the award.
5. The learned counsel further submits that a counter-affidavit has
been filed in the present case, wherein at para-5 it has been stated that
the petitioner has not completed 10 years of pensionable service on the
date of exit from service and therefore, he is not entitled to monthly
pension. The learned counsel submits that the statement made in para-
5 of the counter-affidavit is erroneous and is not in accordance with
law.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that the petitioner has sought a mandamus from this Court
and the grievance of the petitioner can be looked into by the
respondent No. 5 who would be in possession of the relevant records
of the petitioner. He submits that the matter be remitted to respondent
No. 5 who may consider the grievance of the petitioner and look into
the records and pass appropriate order with regard to the claim of the
petitioner.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, this writ
petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the
respondent No. 3 by filing a detailed representation with regard to his
claim along with a copy of this order and the writ records and other
judgments/materials on which he seeks to rely upon within a period of
one month from today.
8. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 3 shall
pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two
months from the date of filing of the representation after granting an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.
5. If the petitioner is entitled to any amount, appropriate steps be taken
to remit the same to the petitioner. The reasoned order should also be
communicated to the petitioner through speed-post at the address
which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.
9. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
directions and observations.
10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
