Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs The Employer In Relation To The ... on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 128 of 2022
---------
Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Shanti Ram Singh, resident of village-
Nichitpur, PO-Katras Bazar, PS-Katras, District-Dhanbad ... Appellant
Versus
The Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Area of M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Katras, PO&PS-Katras, District-
Dhanbad ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the BCCL : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
---------
ORDER
th
29 August 2023
The workman whose cause was espoused by Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh approached the writ Court to challenge the award dated 10 th
September 2014.
2. The writ Court has passed the following order:
"Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay
and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey.
Petitioner namely, Ashok Kumar Singh has preferred this writ petition
for quashing the Award dated 10.09.2014 passed by learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 82 of 2001,
whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has recorded that Reference vide order
No. L-12012/463/96/IR (C-1) dated 28.03.2001 has been received before the
learned Tribunal on 03.04.2001 and during pendency of the case concerned, the
sponsoring Union representative submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence
"No dispute" award is passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of
petitioner stands at Sl. No. 3, who was Sweeper. He has been removed from the
service in the year 1985. Reference was made and because of wrong submission
of representative of Union, "No dispute" award has been passed, as such, the
same may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey appearing
for the respondent - BCCL has submitted that it is a stale matter. The
termination order of 1985, has been raised under the Industrial Disputes Act in
the year 2001 and after 14 years, nobody took any interest in the said
proceeding and on the submissions made by representative of the Union
impugned order dated 10.09.2014 has been passed. The learned Industrial
Tribunal has decided the Reference as no dispute, which has been challenged
before this Court without filing any protest petition before the learned Registrar,
Trade Union and after 05 years, this writ petition has been filed on 30.09.2019,
as such, considering it to be a stale matter in view of the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture
Department & Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, this Court may dismiss the
writ petition.
Considering the argument made on behalf of the parties and looking
into material available on record, it appears that it is a stale matter and this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
3. Admittedly a reference was made by the Central Government in
exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of
section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of 14 workmen.
However, on a statement made by the representative of the sponsoring Union,
the Industrial Tribunal has recorded that dispute between the parties has been
resolved and, therefore, passed "no dispute" award.
4. Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides the procedure,
powers and duties of the authorities and section 11-A deals with the powers of
the Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to grant appropriate relief
in case of discharge or dismissal of the workmen. Sub-section (3) to section 11
provides that every Labour Court shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding
within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Sub-
section (9) to section 11 provides that every award made, order issued or
settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for
execution of the orders and decrees of a civil Court under Order XXI of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Now wherever a statement is made that the dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled, the procedure under Order XXIII Rule 1
shall be followed which provides that at any time after the institution of a suit
the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon the suit or
abandon a part of his claim. Rule 3 to Order XXIII provides that if the Court is
satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful
agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties] or where the
defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the
subject-matter of the suit the application shall be allowed. Admittedly, there
was no application moved by the workman or any of the workmen including
the present appellant. Under sub-rule 5, without the consent of other
plaintiffs/claimants the reference could not have been permitted to be
withdrawn. This is also not in dispute that there was no signed affidavit on
behalf of the workman placed before the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of
which the Tribunal could have made a "no dispute" award.
6. Rules 3 and 3-B to Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure
are also relevant for the present purposes. These Rules provide as under:
"3. Compromise of suit.-- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or
compromise, in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant
satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of
the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be
recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to
the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement,
compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an
adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the
question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the
question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such
adjournment.
Explanation.-- An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful
within the meaning of this rule."
"3-B. No agreement or compromise to be entered in a representative suit
without leave of Court.--(1) No agreement or compromise in a representative
suit shall be entered into without the leave of the Court expressly recorded in
the proceedings; and any such agreement or compromise entered into without
the leave of the Court so recorded shall be void.
(2) Before granting such leave, the Court shall give notice in such manner as it
may think fit to such persons as may appear to it to be interested in the suit.
Explanation.--In this rule, "representative suit" means,--
(a) a suit under Section 91 or Section 92,
(b) a suit under Rule 8 of Order I,
(c) a suit in which the manager of an undivided Hindu family sues or is sued as
representing the other members of the family,
(d) any other suit in which the decree passed may, by virtue of the provisions of
this Code or of any other law for the time being in force, bind any person who
is not named as party to the suit."
7. Having regard to the aforesaid statutory provisions, we are unable
to accord our concurrence to the writ Court's order and, accordingly, the order
dated 18th February 2022 passed in WP(L) No. 5571 of 2019 is set aside.
Consequently, the award dated 10th September 2014 is set aside.
8. Reference No.82 of 2001 is restored to its original files. The
Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad shall afford
sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter shall make
an award in accordance with law.
9. L.P.A. No. 128 of 2022 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
R.K.
