Jharkhand High Court
Management Of M/S Sun Pharmaceutical ... vs His Workman Shri Ashok Kumar Chandra C/O ... on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 5260 of 2023
Management of M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited SUN
House, Plot No. 201 B/1, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E),
P.O. Goregaon, P.S. Goregaon, District Mumbai 400 063.
(Maharashtra), through its Authorized Signatory, Shri Sameer
Darwhekar, aged about 45 years, son of Late Shri Suresh Darwhekar,
resident of 1001, Parkwoods A CHS, Behind D Mart, Ghodbunder
Road, Thane (West) 400615, P.O. Kasarvadavli, P.S. Kasarvadavli,
District Thane, Maharashtra. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
His Workman Shri Ashok Kumar Chandra C/o Secretary, BSSR
Union, Rest House, D.S. Colony, Hirapur, P.O. Hirapur, P.S. Hirapur,
District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
---
13/28.10.2024
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent workman has submitted
that there is an order for reinstatement passed by the learned Labour
Court, Dhanbad and therefore, the respondent is entitled for payment
in terms of section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further
submitted that the workman has stated in the interlocutory application
that the respondent has reached the stage of starvation and it has also
been stated that the respondent is out of service since February, 2016
is not gainful employed during this period. The learned counsel has
also submitted that there is a direction for reinstatement with Rs.
50,000/- as litigation cost.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
2001 (5) SCC 169 to submit that the respondent is entitled for benefit
under section 17 (B) of Industrial Disputes Act during the pendency of
proceeding before the High Court, even if there is no specific order of
stay passed by the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed
the prayer of the respondent and has submitted that the subject matter
of challenge before the learned Labour Court was the order of transfer.
He has referred to the terms of reference. The Learned counsel
submits that the order of transfer was held to be tainted with malice
and the management was directed to reinstate the respondent workman
at Dhanbad on the post of Territory Sales Executive as the order of
transfer dated 14.01.2016 was set aside. The learned counsel submits
that the order of transfer having been set aside by the learned Court ,
at the best such order could have entitled the respondent to join the
post from where he was transferred. He submits that under such
circumstances the provisions of section 17 B of the Industrial Act
1947 are not attracted.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the respondent was transferred and the terms of reference was
"Whether the transfer of Shri Ashok Kumar Chandra, TSE by the
management M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Limited is
justified? If not, what relief he is entitled."
6. The reference was ultimately decided by the learned Labour
Court and it has been held that the order of transfer was tainted with
malice and the respondent was subjected to unfair labour practice and
while granting the relief to the respondent while deciding the Issue
No. V, the learned Labour Court reiterated that the transfer order was
tainted with malice and the respondent was compelled to sit idle from
01.02.2016 and noting was paid by the petitioner; the management
failed to establish that the respondent was gainfully employed after
01.02.2016 and the workman was also denied payment from
February, 2016 under Payment of Wages Act vide order dated
18.12.2018. The learned Labour Court was of the view that such order
of denial of payment under Payment of Wages Act cannot in any way
hinder the court from granting any relief by way of consequential
effect of the illegal transfer order. It was also recorded that the
respondent was ready to perform his work but was compelled to sit
idle hence the management was directed to pay 75% of the back
wages from 01.02.2016 until his reinstatement.
7. The learned Labour Court ultimately ordered the petitioner to
reinstate the workman at Dhanbad on the post of Territory Sales
Executive and the order of transfer dated 14.01.2016 was set aside.
8. This Court finds that in the present case, the order of
reinstatement is not arising out of any order of dismissal or removal
from service passed by the petitioner rather the award arises out of
challenge to illegality or invalidity of order of transfer and the order of
transfer has been set-aside.
9. The impugned award reflects that after setting aside the order of
transfer dated 14.01.2016 an order of reinstatement has been passed
asking the petitioner to reinstate the respondent at Dhanbad on the
post of Territory Sales Executive i.e. on the same post from where the
respondent was transferred. The provision of section 17B nowhere
provides that section 17B will be attracted only when the order of
reinstatement is arising out of setting aside the order of dismissed or
removed from service. In the present case, the order of transfer having
been set-aside, there is an order of reinstatement to the place from
where the workman was transferred. This court is of the view that the
order of reinstatement arising out of setting aside of the order of
transfer would also fall within the ambit of section 17 B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Other requirements of applicability of
section 17B having been fulfilled, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief in terms of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
10. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 10094 of 2023 filed by the
respondent workman is allowed.
11. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount in terms of section
17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the month of November,
2023 [the Interlocutory Application No. 10094 of 2023 has been filed
on 03.11.2023] and filed a compliance report before this Court so that
the case is taken up on merits on the next date.
12. The respondent has furnished the bank details which are as
follows:-
Name: - Ashok Kumar Chandra
Bank Name- ICICI
A/c No. 019601500482
IFSC Code- ICIC0002715
13. Post this case under the heading for "Final Disposal" on 27th
November, 2024.
14. In the meantime the office is directed to call for the records
from the concerned court.
15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
"FAX/E-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
