Jharkhand High Court
Bssr Union Represented Through Its ... vs M/S Svizera Healthcare Through Its ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:17089-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 354 of 2024
BSSR Union represented through its Present Secretary Sumeet
Gupta aged about 45 years son of Sri Chhotu Ram, Office at
Viswakarma Mandir Lane, Opp. Hotel Chinar, Main Road P.O. G.P.O.,
P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Svizera Healthcare through its Managing Director, having its
Office at Plot No. 29/33, Ancillary Industrial Estate, Deonar,
Govandi, P.O. and P.S. Govandi, Mumbai -400643.
2. The Managing Director, M/s Svizera Healthcare, having its Office at
Plot No. 29/33, Ancillary Industrial Estate, Deonar, Govandi, P.O.
and P.S. Govandi, Mumbai -400643.
3. The President Sales, M/s Svizera Healthcare, having its Office at
Plot No. 29/33, Ancillary Industrial Estate, Deonar, Govandi, P.O.
and P.S. Govandi, Mumbai -400643.
4. The General Manager (HR and Administration), M/s Svizera
Healthcare, having its Office at Plot No. 29/33 Ancillary Industrial
Estate, Deonar, Govandi, P.O. and P.S. Govandi, Mumbai -
400643.
5. The Deputy General Manager (Sales), Inspira Division M/s Svizera
Healthcare, having its Office at Plot No. 29/33, Ancillary Industrial
Estate, Deonar, Govandi, P.O. and P.S. Govandi, Mumbai -
400643.
6. The Regional Sales Manager, Inspira Division, M/s Svizera
Healthcare, Office at Shree Balajee Pharmaceuticals, 2nd Floor,
Surya Prabha Mansion, New Dak Bunglow Road, P.O. and P.S.
Patna, District- Patna, Bihar -800001.
7. The District Sales Manager, Inspira Division, M/s Svizera
Healthcare, office at Pharma Link, Sheoganj, Kishoreganj, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001.
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Uday Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhanshu Deo, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advcoate
---------
Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Pronounced on: 30/06/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.
25.04.2024 in W.P.(L) No. 914 of 2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
2025:JHHC:17089-DB
2) The Appellant Union had filed an application before the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi under Section 2A of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on behalf of a sales promotion
employee by name Santan Kumar praying to set aside a letter
dt. 23.03.2013 whereby he was discharged from service of the
1st respondent by way of punishment.
3) In the application filed under Section 2A, a prayer was also
made to reinstate Santan Kumar with full back wages and other
benefits. The said application was numbered as Ref. Case No.
10 of 2013.
4) By an award dt. 15.02.2022, the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Ranchi allowed the said case and set aside the letter of
the 1st respondent discharging Mr. Santan Kumar from service
and directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the said person with
50% of total wages.
5) Challenging the same, the 1st respondent and others filed W.P.
(L) No. 914 of 2023.
6) Several contentions were raised by the 1st respondent before
the learned Single Judge and one of the points which was
considered by the learned Single Judge was:
"whether the case, as filed before the Labour Court under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act ,1947 by the appellant
union, was maintainable or not?"
7) The learned Single Judge held that there was no reference
made by the Government to the Labour Court in terms of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
It was also noted by the learned Single Judge that the
Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer,
2025:JHHC:17089-DB
Ranchi in a letter dt. 02.07.2013 has stated that the conciliation
had failed due to non-participation of the 1st respondent
company with regard to the industrial dispute previously raised
by the Union on behalf of the employee Santan Kumar through
a letter dt. 13.02.2013; that such industrial dispute through a
letter dt. 13.02.2013 was raised prior to the discharge of Santan
Kumar; and the discharge letter was issued by the 1 st
respondent on 23.03.2013 by way of punishment.
The learned Single Judge also noted that the Assistant
Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer in his letter dt.
02.07.2013 mentioned that conciliation proceeding had failed,
that the 1st respondent company was not interested in
conciliation and after referring to the amendment made to the
Industrial Disputes Act in 2010 by which Section 2A was
introduced, advised that the amended provision can be invoked
to raise the dispute regarding discharge in competent court.
The learned Single Judge also noted that no dispute
was raised before the Assistant Labour Commission-cum-
Conciliation Officer, Ranchi pursuant to the order of discharge
of Santan Kumar and straightaway a case was filed by the
appellant Union before the Labour Court under Section 2A by
referring to the letter dt. 02.07.2013.
8) Though the Labour Court had held the issue of maintainability in
favour of the appellant Union, the learned Single Judge
reversed the said finding by holding that in the letter dt.
02.07.2013 there was no advice to the appellant Union to file
the case under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and
that the Labour Court had misread and misunderstood the said
2025:JHHC:17089-DB
letter to hold that the case filed by the Union under Section 2A
was maintainable.
The learned Single Judge also held that in a case
covered under Section 2A, it is for the workman to file an
application before the Conciliation Officer in terms of Section
2A(2) and in the absence of such a step, even the workman
cannot approach the learned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal
directly, much less the Union. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, held that required steps in terms of Section 2A were
not taken and this aspect missed the attention of the Labour
Court.
9) Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that in the absence of
any application having been filed before the Conciliation Officer
in terms of Section 2A(2) of the Act, neither the employee
Santan Kumar nor the appellant Union representing him could
have directly filed an application before the Labour Court under
Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10) Though counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the
findings of the learned Single Judge by contending that there
is an "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947 and that Section 36 of the Act permits
representation of workman by office bearers of registered trade
union in a proceeding under the Act, we are of the opinion that
neither of these contentions can be accepted to justify the
application of the appellant Union before the Labour Court
under Section 2A(2) of the Act particularly when such
application was not filed before the Conciliation officer.
2025:JHHC:17089-DB
11) Section 2(k) no doubt defines what is an "industrial dispute"
and Section 36 no doubt authorizes office bearers of registered
trade union to represent their members in such industrial
disputes pending before the Labour Court, but this does not
mean that, contrary to the procedure prescribed in sub-section
(2) of Section 2A, the appellant Union, instead of the workman
in question can invoke Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947.
12) We, therefore, do not find any error in the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us in
Letters Patent jurisdiction.
13) The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
MM
NAFR
Cp.02
