Jharkhand High Court
Samu Chowdhary vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2281 of 2024
1. Samu Chowdhary
2. Samir Mukherjee
3. Satya Narayan Ghoshal
4. Bishwanath Karmakar
5. Ganesh Kumar Karmakar
6. Ajit Kumar Pal
...... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Dhanbad
2. Chief Manager (P) MP & R, M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
3. The General Manager (PF/ Pension), M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
4. The General Manager, M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
5. The Area Personnel Manager, BCCL Govindpur, Dhanbad
6. Coal Mines Provident Fund through its Commissioner, Dhanbad
..... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners :Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Mahato, Advocate
For the BCCL : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the CMPF : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
05/ 07.05.2024: Heard Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the BCCL and Mr. Prashant
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CMPF.
2. Pursuant to order dated 06.05.2024 Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra,
Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization is appearing through
Video Conferencing. As Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf
of Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization is physically present before the
Court, the appearance of Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund is
dispensed with.
3. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 6 submits that he was not available in the Court on
06.05.2024 due to certain exigencies and his junior has not appeared in the
Court due to ignorance in view of that observation made in paras 2 and 3 in
order dated 06.05.2024 may not adverse the position of him.
4. In view of above submission, observation made in paras 2 and
3 of order dated 06.05.2024 will not be treated any adverse comment against
him by this Court.
5. In this petition prayer is made to for direction upon the
respondents to release the pension of the petitioners as they have retired
from their service in the year, 2021 and already about three years have
passed but till date respondents have not released pension in favour of the
petitioners. Further prayer is made for direction upon the respondents for
payment of arrears of pension with interest @ 10% per annum.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners were appointed prior to 22.12.1983 in the Barora Area of M/s
Bharat Coking Coal Limited. She further submits that thereafter the
Management had retrenched the petitioners and other workmen for that an
Industrial Disputes was raised which was registered as Ref. Case No. 151 of
1989 in which award was passed in favour of the petitioners to reinstate in
service w.e.f. 22.12.1983 and to pay back wages. She further submits that
the matter was gone up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
reinstatement order of petitioners and others was upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. She further submits that the reinstatement of the
petitioners and other workmen was implemented and the petitioners were
reinstated. She submits that a settlement was signed on 27.06.2014 by
respondent Management and concerned Union in which it has been clearly
mentioned that concern workmen were notionally reinstated w.e.f.
21.02.1992. In Clause 4 of the settlement it has been mentioned that the
concerned awardees will be deemed to be in employment of the company
from the date of the award dated 21.02.1992 for all practical purposes and in
this connection various obligations will have to be discharged by the each
awardees. She further submits that the respondents have provisionally
reinstated the petitioners w.e.f. 21.02.1992. She submits that the petitioners
have retired on 30.06.2021. She further submits that the petitioners have
already submitted their claim regarding release of pension, gratuity and
provident fund before the concerned authority of BCCL. She draws the
attention of the Court to Annexure-3 which is judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court and submits that the case of the petitioners is covered in
view of said judgement. She further submits that W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2021 was
allowed by order dated 15.03.2024 whereby direction has been issued to the
respondents to fix pension of the petitioners of that case after fulfillment of
the formalities as per requirement of law within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. She further
submits that the petitioners are ready to comply the direction made in para
4 of the said judgement and they will contribute and refund amount given by
C.M.P.F.
7. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.M.P.F.
submits that once compliance of coordinate Bench order will be made by the
petitioners there will be no difficulty as the matter is covered by the
judgment of coordinate Bench.
8. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the B.C.C.L. submits
that the matter is covered and in that view of the matter this petition can
be disposed of directing the petitioners to contribute in terms of said
judgment of the Coordinate Bench and Management will act in the light of
said judgment.
9. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and considering that the matter is covered in view of judgment of
the Coordinate Bench, in absence of counter affidavit the matter can be
disposed of.
10. Accordingly, the petitioners is directed to file representation
before the respondent no.3 within two weeks and if such representation is
filed the respondent no.3 will take a decision considering the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench passed in W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2021 and pass appropriate
order as the petitioners are agreed to comply paragraph 4 of the said
judgment and the petitioners will deposit and contribute as well as refund of
C.M.P.F. amount. The respondent no. 3 will do so within a period of four
weeks after receipt of representation/production of a copy of this order. If the
decision is taken the same shall be forwarded by the BCCL to respondent no.
6 within two weeks further thereafter and the respondent no. 6 will act upon
recommendation of the BCCL within a period of four weeks further thereafter.
11. It is needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the
petitioners the fruit of the same will be provided to the petitioners within a
period of four weeks from the date of decision of the respondent no. 6.
12. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
satyarthi-
