Tata Motors Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2281 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Tata Motors Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     L.P.A. No. 600 of 2025

     Tata Motors Limited, having its registered office at Mumbai and its
     works at Jamshedpur, through its Authorized Signatory Sri Anand
     Vardhan                                ...   ...    Appellant
                              Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of
        Labour, Ranchi
     2. Santosh Kumar                       ...   ...       Respondents
                                  With
                        L.P.A. No. 606 of 2025

     Tata Motors Limited, having its registered office at Mumbai and its
     works at Jamshedpur, through its Authorized Signatory Sri Anand
     Vardhan                                      ...    ... Appellant
                              Versus
     Santosh Kumar                   ...    ...     Respondent-Workman
                                    -----

        CORAM:            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

     For the Appellant                  : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
                                                             [In both cases]
     For the State                   : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
                                  -----
     Order No. 05                                    Dated: 23.03.2026

1. Learned counsel for the appellant mentioned these matters in the

morning session on the ground that there is urgency.

2. The matters have now come up and the submission was made that

intentionally the respondent-workman is not appearing in these

matters.

3. To our query as to whether the respondent-workman has been served,

it was admitted that he has not been served.

4. Now the office report shows that even the process fees and copies

have not been filed and, therefore, the Registry was unable to issue

any notice to the workman.

5. Now, execution proceedings being Execution Case No. 194 of 2025

have been filed by the workman. Therefore, the appellant is not

justified in these circumstances seeking stay on the execution

proceedings. Further, we note that even these appeals were filed after

delay of 227 days and 196 days respectively, which are yet to be

condoned.

6. Based upon pendency of these appeals, the execution petitions are

sought to be delayed. At the same time, no steps are taken to effect

service upon the respondent-workman. Such an approach cannot be

appreciated.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay on the execution

proceedings. Subject to depositing the entire awarded amount in this

Court within two weeks from today, the further proceedings of

Execution Case No. 194 of 2025 pending before the learned Civil Judge

(Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur, are stayed.

8. In the meantime, immediate steps should be taken by the appellant to

pay process fees and provide copies so that the respondent-workman

can be served. Since the matter is placed before the executing court

tomorrow, leave is granted to effect service upon the workman

tomorrow itself. There should be no lethargy in effecting service upon

the respondent-workman now that we have granted stay on the

execution proceedings. Similarly, there should be no lethargy in

depositing the entire amount involved in these two appeals in this

Court within two weeks from today without delaying the matter.

9. List these matters on 08.04.2026, high on board only to examine

whether deposit is made and steps are taken to serve the respondent-

workman.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

March 23, 2026 Manish/Ritesh