Food Corporation Of India vs Garib Das And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1927 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(L) No. 2921 of 2017

                Food Corporation of India              ...  ...    Petitioner
                                        Versus
                Garib Das and Anr.           ...       ...   Respondents
                                        With
                              W.P.(L) No. 5196 of 2017

                Food Corporation of India                     ...       ...    Petitioner
                                        Versus
                Agendra Nath Dubey and Anr.            ...          ...       Respondents
                                        ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate

---

10/04.05.2023 The learned counsel for the parties submit that by the impugned orders, the learned labour court has decided preliminary issue and has held that the domestic enquiry was unfair and improper and has further rejected the preliminary objection by holding that as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 05.08.2011 in W.P.(C). No.2084 of 1988 (Food Corporation of India Vs. Union of India), it was specifically held that even Manager is a workman and therefore, the objection raised by the Management was rejected.

2. They submit that the matter was posted for evidence. They are not aware about the present status of the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the aforesaid writ petition was subject matter of appeal and the matter was ultimately remanded to the learned Single Judge who has passed a fresh order dated 12.12.2022 in W.P.(C). No.2084 of 1988 holding that the category II Assistant Managers are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel submits that once they are held to be not workmen therefore, the learned labour court losses jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the private respondent.

4. Office is directed to call for the present status of complaint case no.2 of 2013 and the complaint case no.01 of 2013 from the court of learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad.

5. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in connection with the same designation as involved in the present case, the matter is pending before this Court in L.P.A. No.446 of 2019 filed by the petitioner.

6. Post these cases on 26.06.2023 for 'Final Disposal'.

7. On the next date, the learned counsel for the parties will apprise this Court about the present status of the aforesaid LPA.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad through FAX for compliance.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/