Jharkhand High Court
Nutricia International Private Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 8 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 2306 of 2025
---------
Nutricia International Private Ltd. ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Adv
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
---------
2/08.05.2025
The grievance of the petitioner is that the reference
made by the competent authority is bad in law, inasmuch as,
he has presumed that the transfer made by the appellant-
Company pursuant to the reinstatement of the employee is
punitive in nature. In this regard, he also referred the
judgment passed in the case of Tata Iron and Steel
Company Limited, reported in (2014)1 SCC 536 wherein at
para 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the
law as under:-
"11. Having said so, we are of the opinion that the terms of reference
are not appropriately worded inasmuch as these terms of reference
do not reflect the real dispute between the parties. The reference
presupposes that the respondent workmen are the employees of the
appellant. The reference also proceeds on the foundation that their
services have been "transferred" to M/s Lafarge. On these
suppositions the limited scope of adjudication is confined to decide as
to whether the appellant is under an obligation to take back these
workmen in service. Obviously, it is not reflective of the real dispute
between the parties. It not only depicts the version of the respondent
workmen, but in fact accepts the same viz. they are the employees of
the appellant and mandates the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to
only decide as to whether the appellant is required to take them back
in its fold. On the contrary, as pointed out above, the case set up by
the appellant is that it was not the case of transfer of the workmen to
M/s Lafarge but their services were taken over by M/s Lafarge which
is a different company/entity altogether. As per the appellant they
were issued fresh appointment letters by the new employer and the
relationship of employer-employee between the appellant and the
workmen stood snapped. This version of the appellant goes to the
root of the matter. Not only it is not included in the reference, the
appellant's right to put it as its defence, as a demurer, is altogether
shut and taken away, in the manner the references are worded.
12. We would hasten to add that, though the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference, but at the same time it
is empowered to go into the incidental issues. Had the reference been
appropriately worded, as discussed later in this judgment, probably
it was still open to the appellant to contend and prove that the
respondent workmen ceased to be their employees. However, the
reference in the present form does not leave that scope for the
appellant at all."
2. Moreover, looking to the averments and the
documents annexed herein, it appears that the petitioner is
prejudiced with the transfer order without having any right to
be in a place of his own choice. Apparently, he was dismissed
earlier and thereafter reinstated pursuant to the award.
So far as this reference is concerned, for the reason
that it presupposes that the transfer is punitive in nature;
referred the case for adjudication, which prima facie has no
legs to stand in the eye of law; as such the further proceeding
in Reference No. 01/2025 pending before the Presiding
Officer Labour Court, Dhanabd shall remain stayed.
3. Issue notice to the respondent No.4 for which, requisite
etc. must be filed within a period of one week after summer
vacation under registered cover with A/D as well as under
ordinary process.
4. List this case on 30.07.2025.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/-
