Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Ram Sarup Mahato on 23 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 2743 of 2019
Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Ram Sarup Mahato.
... ... Respondent
With
W.P.(L) No. 3587 of 2019
Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Indradeo Paswan ... ... Respondent
With
W.P.(L) No. 2959 of 2018
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and anr. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
Md. Ainul Abedin Ansari ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
: Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate
---
11/23.10.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned judgment passed under Section 33C (2) of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 has submitted that the opposite party had filed a
petition seeking wages for certain days. He submits that different
number of days are involved in difference cases but the point involved
is the same. He has placed the facts from the W.P.(L) No.2743 of
2019. He submits that the application was filed for payment of 13 days
wages which the petitioner had deducted while giving payment of
terminal dues. The learned counsel submits that different workmen
had joined on different dates in the midst of the month. At a later stage
a decision was taken to have uniformity and consequently additional
wages for the remaining period of the month was paid in advance with
a clear rider that the payment will be subject to adjustment at the time
of payment of terminal dues. He submits that there was a serious
dispute in connection with the entitlement of the concerned workman,
and therefore, petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute
was itself not maintainable and the learned labour court has erred in
law in directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.26,016/- being
the wages for 13 days. He submits that the impugned order is wholly
without jurisdiction, and therefore, it calls for interference.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by
this Court in LPA No.379 of 2012 (Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Sri
Siraj Mian and ors.) decided on 17.06.2020, paragraph 25 onwards,
to submit that various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court with regard to the scope of Section 33C (2) have been
considered.
4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is a direction
for payment of interest @ 9% if the amount is not paid within a period
of 30 days. He submits that the learned labour court has no jurisdiction
to direct payment of interest as the amount on account of computation
under Section 33C (2) is recoverable as a certificate proceeding, which
itself has statutory interest. He has relied upon the judgment passed by
this Court in W.P.(L) No.6969 of 2017 (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs.
Smt. Shail Kumari Devi and Anr.) decided on 19.06.2023. He has
referred to paragraph nos.28 to 30 of the said judgment.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
workman had submitted that the impugned order is a well-reasoned
order which does not call for any interference. He has also submitted
that it is not in dispute that at the time of payment of terminal benefit,
the wages to the extent of 13 days were not paid. He has also
submitted that so far as quantum of wages is concerned, the same is
also not in dispute. The petitioner did not file any evidence to show
that the wages for 13 days was paid by way of advance. He has
referred to paragraph 8 of the impugned order to submit that the
maintainability of the case under Section 33C (2) was decided by the
learned labour court by a reasoned order as mentioned therein and
there is no perversity in connection with the point of maintainability as
decided by the learned labour court. The learned counsel submits that
in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment does not call for any interference.
6. Arguments are concluded.
7. Post these cases for further dictation on 28.10.2024 at 2.15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/-
