Jharkhand High Court
Deo Prakash Son Of Late Bhola Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (L). No. 2230 of 2014
....
Deo Prakash son of Late Bhola Prasad, resident of Shanti Nagar,
Dimna Road, Mango PO & PS.- Mango, Town.- Jamshedpur,
District- East Singhbhum ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/s Tata Steel Limited, PO & PS.- Bisturpur, Town-
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum .....Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manav Poddar, AC to AAG-I
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate
------
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
24/02.09.2024 Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Manav Poddar, AC to AAG-I and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. Manish
Mishra.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner challenging the Award dated 14.08.2013 passed in
Reference Case No. 04 of 2009 by Shri Bireswar Jha Praveer, then
learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur by which the
Award has been answered against the Workman/petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned Award dated 14.08.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that though, the
petitioner has filed an application dated 31.03.2006 for Early
Separation Scheme (E.S.S) floated by the Respondent Company.
However, later on he changed his mind and requested the
Personnel Officer to return his E.S.S. application, who did not
return his application. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent letter by
U.P.C. to the respondent company for withdrawal of his
application of E.S.S. However, it was not accepted and he had also
filed several petitions before the Vice President of the Company
and Managing Director of the Company for withdrawal of his
E.S.S., but it was not accepted too and vide letter dated
07.04.2006 he was informed that his E.S.S. was accepted. It is
submitted that the application of the petitioner dated 04.04.2006,
which is the receipt of U.P.C, is marked as Ext.-W before the
Labour Court. It is submitted that the Labour Court had
committed further illegality by observing that the reference is not
maintainable and as such, he has not decided the case of the
petitioner on merit also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the same
has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Sankla and Others reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner was disturbed due to
illness of his mother and as such, he in a disturbed state of mind,
had submitted the application for E.S.S. but later on, he had
realized his mistake and wanted to withdraw but he was not
allowed to withdraw his E.S.S. by the company and as such, the
impugned Award may be set aside and the application of the
petitioner may be accepted and his entire amount may be paid.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that
impugned Award dated 14.08.2013 passed in Reference Case
No. 04 of 2009 by Shri Bireswar Jha Praveer, then learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur is fit and proper and
no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that this
Writ Petition is devoid of merit as the petitioner is no longer a
Workman and the present case does not come under the preview
of Industrial Dispute Act and he had become an employee of
another Company namely Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited.
It is submitted that there is no legal proof of U.P.C. sent by the
petitioner and the petitioner had failed to prove sending of U.P.C.
for withdrawal of his E.S.S. before the Management Company. It
is submitted that U.P.C. has got no evidentiary value in the eye of
law and U.P.C is not a proper mode for sending the notice.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent
has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Shiv Kumar
and Others versus State of Haryana and Other reported
in (1994) 4 SCC 445 and also in the case of State of Maharashtra
versus Rashib B. Mulani reported in (2006) 1 SCC 407.
7. It is further submitted that Management had accepted the
E.S.S. of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2006 and which
was communicated to him vide letter dated 07.04.2006 and as
such, there was no existence of relationship of Employer and
Employee.
8. It is further submitted that vide Exhibit-W/3 and
Exhibit-M/3 to Exhibit-M/9, it is evident that petitioner was
working in another Company i.e. Indian Steel and Wire Company
in Jamshedpur itself and as such, the petitioner was not an
employee with the Respondent Company and as such, Reference
was rightly answered against the Workman. It is further submitted
that even in the letter dated 26.04.2006 which is Annexure-3 of
this writ petition, the petitioner had failed to mention the letter
dated 04.04.2006 sent by U.P.C rather the petitioner has simply
referred some communication with the Authority management on
08.04.2006. Further, the existence of letter dated 04.04.2006 (i.e.
Annexure-2 of this writ petition) and Document 'X' and Exhibit-
'W' of the application is also not reliable and rightly been rejected
by the learned Labour Court below and as such, this Writ Petition
is devoid of merit and may be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents and while going through the
record, this Court finds that the petitioner had applied for E.S.S.
Scheme which was floated by the Respondent Company at the
relevant time on 13.03.2006 and the application of the petitioner
was accepted with effect from 31.03.2006 and the said decision of
the company was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated
07.04.2006.
10. It transpires that though, the petitioner has asserted that
he had sent U.P.C. on 04.04.2006 which was marked for
identification as Ext 'X' before the Court below, however, during
course of evidence of this Workman-Petitioner was examined as
W.W-1, the Court below held that he failed to establish even
issuance of letter dated 04.04.2006 vide U.P.C to the respondent
concerned.
11. It transpires that the Workman in support of his case has
filed several documents which has been discussed by the learned
Labour Court as follows:-
(i) Exhibit W-1 is the letter dated 26.04.2006 sent by the
petitioner to Managing Director, Tata Steel Ltd., for withdrawal of
his E.S.S from 31.03.2006.
(ii) Exhibit W/3 is the letter dated 22.03.2007, Exhibit- W/4
is the letter dated 22.03.2007, Exhibit-W/5 is the letter dated
23.03.2007, Exhibit-W/6 is the letter Dated 26.12.2008,
Exhibit-W/7 is the letter dated 09.03.2009, and Exhibit-W/8 is the
letter dated 16.04.2008 which was sent by the petitioner to the
Chairman, Tata Steel Ltd for sympathetic consideration.
12. It reveals from Exhibit-M and M/1 respectively that
M/s Indian Steel and Wire Products limited had issued
appointment letters to the petitioner on 29.12.2010.
Exhibit-M/2 is the Bio Data submitted by the petitioner to
said M/s Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited.
13. Exhibit M/3, M/4, M/5, M/6, M/7, M/8 and M/9
respectively are the pay slips of the petitioner issued by the said
M/s Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited for the period January
2011 to July 2011 respectively.
14. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is no longer in
the employment of the respondent company as he had joined
another company namely M/s Indian Steel and Wire Products
Limited.
15. This Court further finds that the Management has
accepted the E.S.S. application of the petitioner with effect from
31.03.2006 which was communicated to him by letter dated
07.04.2006. Though, the said document has not been brought on
record by the either side but the fact is admitted by both the sides
and from which this Court comes to the conclusion that the E.S.S.
application of the petitioner was accepted with effect from
31.03.2006 by the respondent company.
16. It has been held in the case of Shiv Kumar and Others
versus State of Haryana and Other reported in (1994) 4 SCC 445
at Para-6 as follows:-
"Para-6:- We have not felt safe to decide the controversy
at hand on the basis of the certificates produced before us,
as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of
time. To assure our mind that the notices had really been
sent out to the workmen concerned, we perused the
application which had been filed by the management seeking
permission. We did so because Rule 76-A(2) requires that
the application shall be made in triplicate and copies of the
same shall be served by the employer on the workmen
concerned and "proof to that effect shall also be submitted by
the employer along with the application". But the application
(Annexure A) has not mentioned anything about "proof" of
service to the workmen concerned. The statement in the
counter-affidavit that proof of service had been submitted to
the specified authority has not satisfied our mind in this
regard."
17. It has been held in the case of in the case of State of
Maharashtra versus Rashib B. Mulani reported in (2006) 1 SCC
407 at Para-17 as follows:-
"Para-17:- A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is
not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by
registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a
receipt with serial number is issued and a record is
maintained by the post office. But when a mere certificate of
posting is sought, no record is maintained by the post office
either about the receipt of the letter or the certificate issued.
The ease with which such certificates can be procured by
affixing antedated seal with the connivance of any employee
of the post office is a matter of concern. The Department of
Posts may have to evolve some procedure whereby a record
in regard to the issuance of certificates is regularly
maintained showing a serial number, date, sender's name
and addressee's name to avoid misuse. In the absence of
such a record, a certificate of posting may be of very little
assistance, where the dispatch of such communications is
disputed or denied as in this case. Be that as it may".
18. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and also in view of the evidence and documents brought on record
by the respondent, it is evident that the application dated
04.04.2006 sent by the U.P.C. is doubtful and has rightly been
rejected by the learned Court below.
19. In view of the submission made above, this Court finds
that the findings given by the learned Labour Court is based on
proper reasons and the Labour Court has rightly held that Manager
is not obliged to treat the application of the Workman as cancelled
or withdrawn.
20. This Court finds that there is no perversity and illegality
in the impugned Award dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned
Labour Court.
21. Thus, in view of the submission made above and in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this W. P.
(L). No. 2230 of 2014 is hereby dismissed.
22. However, the respondent is directed to release the amount
due to the petitioner forthwith within six weeks, if not paid so far.
23. Let the Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court
below at once by the office.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
