Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... vs Sri Krishna Dubey
2022 Latest Caselaw 3890 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                     W.P.(L). No.522 of 2020
                               ----

Bharat Coking Coal Limited through General Manager (P)/Legal, Koyla Bhawan, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, P.O.-Kolakusuma, P.S.-Saraidhella, District-

Dhanbad                                    .... .... Petitioner
                              Versus
Sri Krishna Dubey                          .... .... Respondent
                               ----
     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                               ----
For the Petitioner                  : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent                  : Mr. Sandip Kr. Barnwal, Adv.
                               ----
              nd
05/Dated: 22 September, 2022

1. The writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No.13 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned court has issued certain direction under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972. The operative portion of the said award reads as under:-

"Ordered that the instant claim petition is hereby allowed in favour of applicant and against OP on contest. Consequently, O.P. is directed to pay the difference amount in lieu of revised rate of P.R. Surface Trammer as per NCWA-VII to NCWA-IX. The OP is at liberty to deduct the amount which has already been paid in this regard and pay the difference of revised rate of P.R. Surface Trammer to the applicant within 60 days from passing of this order failing which O.P. will also liable to pay arrear amount along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the expiry of said 60 days till the date of actual payment. Hence, the instant case is hereby disposed off accordingly."

2. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant is entitle for the wages as per the N.C.W.A. rather he has taken plea that certain more amount has been given to other colliery (P.B. Project Colliery) which is not applicable to the respondent.

3. It is case regarding payment of wages. The payment of wages is controlled by the N.C.W.A. Whatever wages has been prescribed by N.C.W.A. to the particular post in the colliery has to be paid to this applicant. This fact has been ordered by the concerned tribunal and as such I find no reason to interfere with the same.

4. So far objection to the interest part is concerned, it is trite that the amount should be same when it is due and actually paid. Amount doesn't mean face value of money rather it is purchasing power of the money. To maintain purchasing power, certain amount of interest has to be awarded otherwise it will be less payment. By awarding interest only the purchasing power of the money has been maintained. No enhance payment has been ordered through the interest.

5. Thus, I don't find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No.13 of 2017.

6. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/-