Anil Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Its The Secretary
2024 Latest Caselaw 1350 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Its The Secretary on 8 February, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                         W.P.(L) No.2033 of 2012




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(L) No.2033 of 2012
                                           ------

Anil Kumar Prasad, son of Shri Bhushan Prasad, resident of Gayatri Nagar, (Gwala Basti), P.O. Indra Nagar, P.S. TELCO, Jamshedpur-

            831008                                            ...      Petitioner
                                     Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand its the Secretary, Labour, Training & Employment department, Secretariat Building, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi. 834002.

2. Management of M/s TELCO, through the Senior General Manager, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. - TELCO, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum ... Respondents

------

             For the Petitioner           : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate
                                            Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate
             For the Resp. No.2           : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
                                            ------
                                       PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India inter alia with a prayer to quash the order dated 19.02.2005 which is

claimed to have been pronounced on open court on 06.06.2005 passed in

Reference Case no.11 of 1993 which is Annexure-1 of this Writ Petition.

3. On being asked by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the award shows that the same was made and pronounced in court on

19.02.2005 but on what basis an averment has been made in this Writ Petition

that the same was pronounced on 06.06.2005, it is not known to the learned

counsel for the petitioner; as the pleadings of the Writ Petition was settled by

some other counsel.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the appropriate Government made the

following reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act:-

"Whether the termination of services of Sarb Shri Y.K. Pandey and A. K. Prasad, Dresser, Telco works Hospital, Telco ltd; Jamshedpur is proper? If not, whether they should be reinstated on work or/ and should get compensation?"

5. The learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur framed the following three issues

for consideration:-

(i) Whether termination of services of Anil Kumar Prasad, Dresser, is proper or not?

(ii) Whether the Compromise made between the workman and the Management on 21st of August, 1996 is valid and voluntarily made between the parties?

(iii) to what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?

6. The learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur answered the issue No.(i) as

under:-

"I find and hold that the termination of the services of the workman Anil Kumar Prasad is valid. Thus issue no. (i) is accordingly answered in favour of the management."

7. In respect of the issue No.(ii), the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur

came to the following conclusion:-

"I find that the compromise was voluntarily made between the parties and this workman was not misled."

8. The issue No.(iii) was decided by holding that the workman Anil Kumar

Prasad is not entitled to any relief.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the second journey of the writ

petitioner for the self-same relief as earlier the writ petitioner filed W.P. (L)

No.433 of 2006. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2010,

considering the fact remanded the matter back on the following single point:-

"that whether after considering the document Annexure-7 i.e. the letter from the Bank of India, dated 25th June, 1998 which was not considered for arriving to the finding as to whether the workman has worked 240 days?"

and observed that the court will consider the document and pass fresh

order on that single point and also further observed that other points decided

shall remain the same and disposed of the writ petition.

10. The said order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P. (L)

No.433 of 2006 has not been challenged and the same has attained finality.

Consequent upon such remand, the Labour Court, Jamshedpur passed award

on 31.05.2011 by finding that the workman has established that he has worked

for more than 240 days in the preceding year of the date of termination. 'In this

way, the issue formulated by the Hon'ble Court is hereby answered in

affirmative.'

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is proved that the

petitioner has completed 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination

and before termination the mandatory provision of law, having not been

complied with, the petitioner is deemed to have been continuing in service as if

no order of retrenchment has been passed. Hence, the finding in the award

dated 19.02.2005 is a perverse and the denial of relief of reinstatement with full

back wages is arbitrary and contrary to the provision of law. Hence, it is

submitted that the petitioner be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages

and all consequential relief in the facts and circumstances of the case and the

order of the High Court passed in W.P. (L) No.433 of 2006 and the fresh award

of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur passed in the same reference case in

compliance of the said order of the Hon'ble Court, be not granted in favour of

the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there is

some error in the prayer portion in the word "be not granted" ought not have

been mentioned in the prayer portion.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, has already, in no uncertain manner held by the order

dated 17.09.2010 in W.P. (L) No.433 of 2006 that the points decided by the

Labour Court, Jamshedpur will remain the same and the points include issue

No.(iii) which is "to what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?" and the

answer is that the workman is not entitled to any relief. So, once the co-

ordinate Bench has given its seal of approval by an express order to the

findings of the three issues framed by the learned labour court and the answers

thereof which are in favour of the management has been approved and the

coordinate bench disposed of W.P. (L) No.433 of 2006 vide order dated

17.09.2010, without setting aside any of the findings of any of the three issues

and the said order having not been challenged by the petitioner, has attained

finality, there is nothing more to be decided in this writ petition and in fact, this

writ petition is not maintainable, hence, this writ petition, being without any

merit, be dismissed.

13. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, as has rightly been

submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the coordinate

Bench of this Court in W.P. (L) No.433 of 2006 has in no uncertain manner vide

its judgment dated 17.09.2010, held that the other points decided by the Labour

Court, Jamshedpur as already mentioned above, includes three issues; the

findings of which arrived at by the Labour court has not even been touched or

set aside by the coordinate Bench rather the coordinate Bench did not find any

justification to interfere with the finding of any of the issues. The said order of

the coordinate Bench has attained finality, having not been challenged.

14. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in this Writ Petition to give any

relief to the petitioner, as prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition being

without any merit is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh