Pradeep Kumar Chitlangia vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2766 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr. Revision No. 1088 of 2010
                                      ---------

1. Pradeep Kumar Chitlangia

2. Ranjay Kumar ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kamlesh Ram, Labour Superintendent, Ranchi

3. Paras Ray

4. Manager Ray ... ... Opposite Parties

---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

---------

       For the Petitioners               : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
                                        : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
       For the State                    : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate
       For the Opp. Parties Nos. 3 &4 : In Person.
                                     ---------
14/10.08.2023
            Heard the parties.

The petitioners have filed this criminal revision application against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2010, passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2010, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2010, passed by Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Shashi, learned J. M. 1 st Class, Ranchi in C-III Case No.86 of 2005, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and thereby sentencing them to undergo S.I. for three months alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- for the aforesaid offence, in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days. The fine amount so realized was directed to be paid by way of compensation to the injured / sufferer Sri Manager Rai and Paras Rai (Workmen).

Reference was made by Government of Bihar dated 18.12.1990 vide notification No.3/D-1-4020/1990 L &E-1270 to the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi to adjudicate whether the dismissal of S/Sri Manager Rai, Paras Rai, Devki Sharma and Dineshwar Das Sharma was justified? If not, what relief, they are entitled too.

The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No.01/1991 decided that their dismissal was not justified and also directed

that they be reinstated in service will full back wages and consequential benefits.

The aforesaid order of learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi dated 14.06.1997 was challenged in C.W.J.C. No.2664 of 1997, however, their aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to satisfy the award.

The dismissed workers, who were ordered to be reinstated did not appear before the petitioners for seven years and in the meantime, they had crossed the age of superannuation, so the only relief, which was available to them was payment of their back wages. These workers appeared before the learned Labour Court, Ranchi for computing their back wages by filing an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi registered a proceeding being M.J. Case No.05 of 2004 and Labour Court, Ranchi and prepared an award of Rs.2,22,378/- to be paid to the workers. The petitioners did not satisfy the award and as such, certificate case was instituted for realization of the award being Certificate Case (LAB) No.99/2006. The petitioners, thereafter, challenged the award prepared by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi by virtue of which they were directed to pay back wages to the workers vide W.P.(L) No.3629 of 2006. The operation of proceeding in Certificate Case (LAB) No.99 of 2006 was stayed in this writ petition vide order dated 08.12.2006 and the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the computed award.

It was submitted that the petitioners had deposited 50% of the award as directed. Subsequently, during the pendency of the writ petition the present case being C-III Case No.86 of 2005 was instituted and petitioners were convicted. It further appears that in writ petition being W.P.(L) No.3629 of 2006 filed by the petitioners, the award of learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,378/- to the workmen was set aside and the matter was remanded afresh. Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi in the light of direction passed in W.P.(L) No.3629 of 2006 dated 27.09.2010 prepared fresh award and directed that the workers namely Paras Ray was to be paid Rs.1,12,497.05 and Manager Ray was directed to be paid Rs.144,527.31. The quantum of back wages so computed by the learned Presiding Officer

Labour Court, Ranchi being M.J. Case No.05 of 2004 dated 29.06.2012 was satisfied, as the petitioners had deposited the aforesaid amount before learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi on 20.02.2014.

Vide order dated 21.03.2023, this court had directed Dineshwar Das Sharma and legal heirs of Devki Sharma to appear before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi to file an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act for receiving the back wages so deposited by the petitioners. It was submitted that Dineshwar Das Sharma and legal heirs of Devki Sharma have appeared before the presiding officer Labour Court, Ranchi and have filed an application under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioners have also appeared. The matter is still pending before the Labour court Ranchi.

C-III Case No.86 of 2005 was instituted for non-satisfaction of the Award passed in M. J. Case No. 05 of 2004. During the pendency of this criminal proceeding petitioners had preferred a writ petition and the back wages which the petitioners were directed to satisfy in M.J. Case No.05 of 2004 was set aside and the matter was remanded afresh to the Labour Court, Ranchi for computing the back wages of the workers afresh. Subsequently, back wages of two workers were recomputed and the petitioners have deposited the amount as directed by learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi.

In my opinion the proceeding under C-III Case No.86 of 2005 had become infructuous, once the computation of back wages in the award against which it was alleged that the petitioners had not satisfied was set aside and the matter was remanded afresh to the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi.

In view of the aforesaid facts, both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court in C-III Case No.86 of 2005 is set aside.

This Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jay/-