Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To Management Of ... vs Their Workman Sri C.P. Agarwal on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 2771 of 2017
Employers in relation to Management of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, District-
Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workman Sri C.P. Agarwal ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Prenana Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
---
th
12/6 May 2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27.01.2017
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 38 of 2012 which has been decided
against the petitioner.
3. The terms of reference is quoted in the award itself, which reads as
under: -
"Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL in
deducting penal rent for occupation of Qr. No. VIIIA,-2255 w.e.f. Dec.
1986 to October, 1990 from the wages of Sri C.P. Agarwal, Staff No.
075855 is proper and justified? And whether the action of the
management of Bokaro Steel Plant SAIL in allegedly wrong fixing the
scales of the said workman from 21.6.1979 till the date of VRS is proper
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
4. The reference was made under clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section
2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of
the award itself, it appears that the reference was challenged before this Court
in a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 3652/2013 primarily on the ground that it
was a stale dispute. He submits that this Court while dismissing the writ
petition also observed that an objection was taken in the written statement that
the respondent was not a workman, but this Court was of the view that the
reference could not be said to be a stale one and industrial dispute existed and
the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter the reference was decided by the
impugned award. The learned counsel submits that a plea was raised as to
whether the respondent was workman or not but it has not been decided by the
learned tribunal by referring to the observation made by this court that
industrial dispute exist. He has referred to paragraph 24 of the impugned
award. The learned counsel submits that such contested point was required to
be decided by the learned tribunal.
6. While further advancing the argument on merits, the learned counsel
submits that the reference was in two parts; one was relating to penal rent for
the period from December 1986 to October 1990 and other was regarding
fixation of scale of pay of the respondent for the period from 21.06.1979 till the
date of his VRS.
7. He submits that while deciding the first point regarding penal rent from
December 1986 to October 1990, the learned Tribunal has only referred to one
previous order which was decided vide Case No. 22 of 1986 relating to the
period June, 1986 to October 1986 under Payment of Wages Act but there is no
finding regarding co-relation between the period 6/1986 to 10/1986 on the one
hand and 12/1986 to 10/1990 on the other hand. He submits that the learned
tribunal while discussing the issue and coming to a conclusion has not referred
to the pleadings of the parties, their respective submissions and the evidences
brought on record and therefore not only the impugned award is perverse but it
is also an unreasoned award.
8. While referring to the second point regarding fixation of scale of pay of
the respondent during the period from 21.06.1979 till the date of VRS, the
learned counsel has referred to paragraph 23 of the impugned award to submit
that the learned Tribunal had suddenly come to a conclusion that the pay ought
to have been Rs. 950/- on promotion in the scale of 800-1400, but there is no
reasoning much less discussion of any evidence/pleadings as to how the
learned Tribunal could jump to the said conclusion. The learned counsel
submits that on this score also, the impugned award is perverse and calls for
interference. He submits that the matter is fit to be remanded for fresh
consideration.
9. The learned counsel submits that there is no question of re-appreciating
the materials available before the learned Tribunal and coming to a different
conclusion in this writ proceedings. He submits that at best it is a case of
remand.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while supporting
the award has submitted that the award is a well-reasoned award and does not
call for any interference.
11. He has submitted that so far as the penal rent is concerned, the workman
was continuing in the same quarter and month to month penal rent was being
deducted and therefore the subsequent period after October 1986 was also
suffering with the same vice and therefore the impugned award in connection
with the aspect of penal rent does not call for any interference. The learned
counsel has also referred to the order passed under the provisions of Payment
of Wages Act in P.W. Case No. 22/1986 which was exhibit-1 before the
learned Tribunal and has submitted that the appellate order was exhibit-2. Both
were exhibited by the respondent.
12. He has further submitted that so far as the pay-scale is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has rightly referred to the entitlement of the petitioner as Rs.
950/- and in support of which the learned counsel has referred to the materials
which were available before the learned labour Court. He has referred to
Annexure-A which was enclosed with his written statement filed before the
learned tribunal.
13. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent was
workman in view of the fact that earlier also there was a reference case. He has
submitted that similar objections were raised even in the case arising out of
Payment of Wages Act, but such objection of the petitioner was rejected.
14. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
fact as to whether the respondent was a workman or was raised throughout and
it was required to be decided. The earlier reference case and order passed under
the Payment of Wages Act was also required to be discussed by the learned
Tribunal while coming to a finding. He submits that the point as to whether
after grant of promotion, the respondent continued to be a workman was also
an issue which was required to be considered. The learned counsel submits that
the learned Tribunal has not decided the issue with regard to the status of the
respondent and has refused to decide such issue on the ground that the writ
petition was dismissed. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error in not deciding as to whether the
respondent was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
15. The learned counsel has submitted that it is not clear as to whether the
document regarding pay fixation was exhibited before the learned Tribunal. He
has submitted that even if it was exhibited it was required to be considered by
the learned labour court to come to a finding that the pay on promotion would
be Rs. 950/-. He has submitted that on these aspects, the impugned award
suffers from perversity and calls for interference.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case and upon going through the impugned award,
this Court finds that the status of the respondent as to whether the respondent
was a workman or not was very much in dispute. At the same time, the
staleness of the claim was also in dispute. However, the writ petition was filed
before this Court being W.P. (L) No. 3652/2013 challenging the reference itself
and this Court held that the claim was not a stale claim and consequently the
reference was required to be decided. However, the learned Tribunal while
considering the objection with regard to the status of the respondent as
workman has held in paragraph 24 that the fact that the respondent is not a
workman has been decided by the High Court. This Court finds that such
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is ex-facie perverse in view of the fact
that the findings of the writ Court in W.P. (L) No. 3652/2013 has been quoted
in the award itself and there is no such finding that the respondent was a
workman. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the status of the
respondent as to whether he was a workman or not within the meaning of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a jurisdictional issue which was required to
be decided on the basis of materials available on record. Having not done so,
the award suffers from perversity.
17. So far as the other relief regarding deduction of penal rent is concerned,
this Court finds that although the case of the respondent is that the deduction
was in continuity with that of the deduction relating to the earlier period which
was decided in connection with a dispute under provisions of Payment of
Wages Act, but the learned Tribunal has not clearly discussed the findings in
the judgment passed under the Payment of Wages Act so as to make similar
order in continuity. The impugned award in that connection appears to be non-
speaking in many aspects of the matter. This Court further finds that the oral
evidences have not been discussed in the findings of the impugned award.
18. So far as the finding by the learned Tribunal with regard to pay of the
respondent on promotion @ Rs. 950/- is concerned, the same is also not
supported by reasons. It appears that in paragraph 23 of the award, the learned
Tribunal has suddenly jumped into the conclusion that on promotion the
respondent was entitled to Rs. 950/-.
19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court finds that the impugned award is perverse and is non-speaking on many
aspects of the matter and therefore calls for interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and accordingly, the same is set-aside.
20. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the matter is remitted to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for passing fresh award.
21. At this, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
respondent is in his advanced age and therefore appropriate order be passed so
that he gets the fruits of the litigation at the earliest.
22. The parties are directed to appear before the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad on 22.05.2024.
23. Upon their appearance, the learned Tribunal is directed to expeditiously
decide the matter and pass a fresh award on the basis of materials already on
record.
24. The needful be done by 30.06.2024.
25. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
26. Pending I.A., if any, is closed
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
