Jharkhand High Court
(A). Ketan Anand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2023
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 760 of 2019
1 (A). Ketan Anand, aged about 54 years, son of Late Satpal Varma,
resident of Belwatika, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District
Palamau ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Gopal Singh son of not known to the petitioner, presently holding
the post of Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields
Limited, Dharbhanga House, P.O. Dharbhanga House, P.S. Sukhdeo
Nagar, District Ranchi
3. Shri A.K. Thakur, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently
holding the post of General Manager, Rajhara Area, Central Coalfields
Limited, At & P.O. Dakra, P.S. Khelari, District Ranchi
... Opp. Parties
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---------------
Order No. 08/ Dated: 06th December 2023
Without prejudice to the claim of any other person being
President of Rajhara Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, this
application for substitution is allowed but only for the purposes of
prosecuting the present contempt case.
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 760 of 2019
2. Alleging willful and intentional violation of the judgment in
LPA No.179 of 2012 pronounced on 03rd March 2014, this contempt
case has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Mazdoor Sangh
submits that even after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition vide
SLP (C) No.18786 of 2014 by which the award dated 22nd December
2000 stands affirmed, the opposite parties have failed to execute the
award.
4. The writ Court's order dated 24th November 2011 passed in
W.P.(L) No.2911 of 2001 was affirmed by the Letters Patent Court by
the judgment dated 03rd March 2014 holding as under:
"36. Learned Tribunal found the claim of the workmen
justified and the award dated 22.12.2000 has been confirmed by
the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 24.11.2011.
Powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can
be exercised only for correcting gross error of jurisdiction where
the Court/Tribunal found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by
assuming the jurisdiction where there exists none, (ii) in excess of
its jurisdiction, (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules
of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice
and thereby occasioning failure of justice [vide Surya Dev Rai Vs.
Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675)].
37. Keeping in view that the workmen were working as Casual
Wagon Loaders for more than three decades, the Tribunal, in
exercise of its wide power, directed the appellant Management to
regularize the Casual Wagon Loaders except those who died and
have superannuated due to attaining the age of 60 years with effect
from 29.4.1991 without backwages. The award was confirmed by
the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 24.11.2011.
We do not find any error of law or error of jurisdiction warranting
interference."
5. From the aforesaid it appears that the award was made only
in favour of those workmen who were in service as on 29th April
1991. In the affidavit dated 04th December 2023, the opposite parties
have given details of 206 applications received from the
awardees/legal heirs of the awardees and the workmen who had
separated on attaining the age of superannuation before passing of the
award. As per this affidavit, 52 applications were submitted by the
legal heirs of the awardees who had died and 63 applications were
submitted by the awardees who had already separated on the date of
award. As regards the remaining 91 applications, the opposite parties
have submitted that 55 awardees who were duly verified have been
regularized in service and the claim raised by remaining 36 applicants
have been rejected.
6. In paragraph no.18 of the affidavit dated 04th December
2023, it has been indicated that 21 applications were not considered
because there are discrepancies in the name of the awardees or their
father/husband.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid statements made on oath, we
close the present contempt case with a direction to the opposite parties
to give an opportunity to the 21 applicants as mentioned in paragraph
no.18 (iv) (c) to furnish further details, affidavits, evidence etc. to
establish genuineness of their claim.
8. However, it is indicated that this order closing the present
contempt case shall not preclude the aggrieved person, if any, to raise
his grievance before the appropriate forum.
9. Cont. Case (Civil) No. 760 of 2019 is dropped.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/ -
