Jharkhand High Court
Krishnendu Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 5 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L). No.6646 of 2022
Krishnendu Mukherjee, aged about 55 years, son of Late Benoy
Kishore Mukherjee, resident of Makatpuri Chowk, P.O. & P.S-
Giridih, District-Giridih .......... Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India
2.Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India
Through its Secretary, Sharam Shakti Bhawan, P.O. & P.S-Tilak
Marg, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3.Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Imli Kothi,
Barkagaon Road, P.O. & P.S Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh
4.Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman,
having its office at Yoga Kashema, Neriman Point, P.S-Marin
Drive, Jeevan Vima Marg, Mumbai-400021
5.Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Hazaribagh Division, P.O. & P.S-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
........ Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Pandey, CGC
For the Resp. Nos.4 & 5: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
-----------
Oral Order in Court
10/Dated:05th September, 2024
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make
correction/rectification in para-1 i.e. the number of respondent in
course of the day and who has submitted that it should be
Respondent No.3 instead of Respondent No.4.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No.2 to refer the
dispute for adjudication in respect of the failure report submitted
by the Respondent No.3-Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Hazaribagh vide letter No.1 (19)/2017 dated 18.01.2018.
3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the UOI and Mr.
Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has raised the issue of regularization which was not
considered by the Respondent No.4 and 5 and as such he had
moved before Respondent No.3 for settlement of the dispute by
way of conciliation and on failure of the conciliation between the
petitioner and authorities of Respondent No.4 and 5, the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh i.e. the Respondent
No.3 had sent the failure of Conciliation Report before the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour for referring the matter
for adjudication and as such the Union of India may be directed to
refer the matter of the petitioner for adjudication.
In the alternative, it is also submitted that the Union of India
may take appropriate decision in the light of judgment passed in
the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1565.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1
to 3 submitted that the Government of India will take appropriate
decision within due time.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and 5 has also
submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage as
the matter is sub-judice before the appropriate forum for its final
decision and the matter is pending before the Central Government,
Labour Department for taking an appropriate decision.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going
through the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner is
aggrieved with the authorities of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for not
taking steps for regularization of his services and for which he had
earlier filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C No.2737 of 1994(R)
before the High Court of Ranchi Bench and in which certain
directions were given vide order dated 27.03.2001 by the High
Court of Jharkhand.
8. It also appears that in the case of the petitioner, Conciliation
was also held by the Respondent No.3-Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh with the petitioner and the
authorities of the Respondent No.4 and 5 with regard to the claim
of the petitioner and on failure of the conciliation, the Respondent
No.3 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh
vide vide letter No.1 (19)/2017 dated 18.01.2018 has alreaady
referred the matter to the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and since then
the matter is pending there.
9. Under the circumstances, this Court directs that the
competent authority, Ministry of Labour and Employment of the
Government of India to take an appropriate decision in accordance
with law with regard to the failure of Conciliation Report sent by
the Respondent No.3 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Hazaribagh reasonably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the
same to the parties concerned, if such decision has not been taken
so far.
10. Thus, this W.P.(L) No.6646 of 2022 is disposed of with
aforesaid direction and observation.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
