[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs Their Workman on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 130 of 2025
Employers in relation to the Management of Lakhimata Colliery under Mugma
Area of M/s ECL (Eastern Coalfields Limited), through its General Manager,
having its office at Mugma Aare, Post Office- Mugma, Police Station- Nirsa,
District-Dhanbad. .... Appellant
Versus
Their Workman, Sri Anil Rajwar, represented by the Assistant Joint General
Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union (JJMU), Vishwakarma Colony,
Nutandih, Post Office- Jagjiwan Nagar, Police Station-Saraidhela, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr Rajesh Lala, Advocate
-----
05 /Dated: 24.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge's judgment and order
dated 12.07.2024, dismissing the appellant's W.P.(L) No. 3479 of 2022
questioning the Tribunal's Award dated 11.10.2021 in Reference No. 23 of
2008.
3. By the Award dated 11.10.2021, the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad held that the respondent-worker's dismissal from
service was neither legal nor justified and directed the worker's reinstatement
without any back wages. The learned Single Judge has upheld the Tribunal's
Award dated 11.10.2021 and dismissed the appellant's writ petition by
directing the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
4. Mr Lala, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
could not have been faulted for not holding any inquiry into the misconduct of
unauthorized absence of the worker. He submitted that the worker admitted to
the absence and in such circumstances, there was no necessity of holding any
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
enquiry. Therefore, on the ground that no enquiry was held or that the enquiry
was defective, no relief could have been granted to the worker. He relied on
Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudalair Educational
Institution Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Another, (1997) 7 SCC
332 to support this contention.
5. Without prejudice, Mr Lala submitted that the only document based
upon which the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have granted relief to
the worker was a medical prescription dated 04.06.2011. He submitted that this
document was a forgery or fabrication, because it bears the date of 17.11.2011,
below the doctor's signature. He, therefore, submits that the finding of the
Tribunal is vitiated by perversity and warrants interference.
6. Mr Lala submitted that in this case, the reference was barred under
Section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, because the grievance
about termination was raised more than five years after the date of termination.
Alternatively, Mr Lala submitted that even a reference under section 10 must
be made within a reasonable period, and since it was not made within a
reasonable period, the reference itself was incompetent.
7. We have considered Mr Lala's submissions, but we do not find merit in
any of them.
8. Insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned, the learned Single Judge
has correctly held that this was not a case of an application under Section 2A
by the worker, but rather a case in which the Union raised an industrial dispute
and sought a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. Such a reference was
ultimately made by the appropriate Government, and the reference order was
not even challenged by the appellant.
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
9. Besides, this can hardly be called a belated or a stale reference in the
facts of the present case. It is not as if the workers or the union were indolent
in the matter. They were agitating the issue of what they perceived to be an
illegal and unfair termination. The appropriate Government, if, after
considering all such circumstances, deemed it appropriate to make a reference,
we can hardly fault the appropriate Government or declare that the reference
proceedings were incompetent, even in the absence of any challenge to the
same by the appellant.
10. As regards the contention about failure to hold an enquiry or holding of
a defective enquiry, which was bereft of any principles of natural justice, we
must observe that the worker merely stated that he was indeed absent because
of his illness and now that he has become fit, he should be allowed to resume
his duties. Such a statement can hardly be regarded as an admission of
"unauthorised absence".
11. At the highest, what was admitted was the absence. However, there was
no admission about such absence being unauthorised. On the contrary, the
worker raised specific concerns about his ill health and consequent inability to
attend to duties.
12. Therefore, by completely misconstruing the worker's statement, the
appellant could not have either done away with the enquiry or held an enquiry
which was completely defective. In this case, though, the burden was on the
appellant to establish the worker's misconduct; the appellant chose not to
examine any witness in the inquiry or the so-called inquiry.
13. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the
learned Single Judge on the aspect of failure to hold an enquiry or a defective
enquiry. These concurrent findings are supported by the evidence on record
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
and therefore can hardly be styled as "perverse findings". In this letters patent
appeal, therefore, we are loath to interfere with such findings of fact, now that
no case of perversity has been made out.
14. The final contention that the medical certificate is a forgery, or
fabrication is also entirely misconceived. Firstly, requiring this Court to
evaluate evidence is nothing but an attempt to convert this Court into an
Appellate Forum, which it is not. Secondly, from the perusal of the
prescription/certificate, it is apparent that it was in the nature of a case paper
prepared by the doctor. It bears several dates, perhaps indicating when the
worker followed up with the doctor and obtained prescriptions. Far from
suggesting any forgery or fabrication, this document indicates that the worker
was indeed unwell and visited the doctor regularly for follow-up.
15. In the case of Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy
Mudalair Educational Institution (supra), the factual situation was not even
remotely comparable to that in the present case. There was a clear and
categorical admission about the unauthorised absence. Here, there was no such
admission. The admission was only about the absence, and an explanation was
offered for the absence. Therefore, the observations in paragraph 8 upon which
reliance was placed will not assist the appellant in the present case.
16. For the above reasons, now we are satisfied that none of the contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant has any merit and warrants interference in this
appeal. However, before we part, we must refer to another disturbing feature
of this matter. In this case, the Tribunal made the impugned award on
11.10.2021 and directed the workers' reinstatement. Even though no interim
relief was granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant,
which is a Public Sector Undertaking, chose to disregard the Award with
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
impunity and not to reinstate the worker. The worker, ultimately, attained the
age of superannuation on 31.08.2023.
17. The appellant, to date, has not paid wages for the period between
11.10.2021 and 31.08.2023 on the grounds that there was no direction for
payment of this amount. This is a grossly unfair approach by a public sector
undertaking that litigates using taxpayers' funds. There was no question of
issuing such a direction because the Tribunal expected its Award would be
faithfully implemented by the appellant unless, of course, any interim relief
was granted or the award was overturned by this Court.
18. Even before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the
appellant fairly admitted that no interim relief had been granted. To date, the
appellant has not paid wages for the period from 11.10.2021 to 31.08.2023.
Therefore, while we dismiss this appeal, with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, we direct
the appellant to deposit in this Court the back wages for the period between
11.10.2021 (the date of the Tribunal's award) and 31.08.2023 (i.e. the date on
which the worker attained the age of superannuation), within four weeks with
due intimation to the worker who, possibly, on account of penury, has not been
able to attend to this Court proceedings.
19. If there is a delay in depositing the above amount together with the costs
awarded by the learned Single Judge and the costs awarded in this appeal
within four weeks from today, then, this amount will carry interest at the rate
of 9% per annum, which shall, of course, be without prejudice to any action
under the contempt of Courts Act that will have to be taken against the CMD
of the appellant. Besides, the interest component will have to be personally
paid by the CMD.
( 2026:JHHC:8272-DB )
20. A copy of this order must be immediately placed before the CMD,
because very often, a defence is taken that some other officers were handling
the matter, and the CMD had no knowledge about the same. Such defences are
most often taken in contempt proceedings initiated for failure to comply with
orders of Tribunals and Courts, with impunity.
21. The above amount should be deposited in this Court on or before the
24th of April 2026, unless, of course, any interim relief is secured in the
meantime.
22. Though the appeal is dismissed, to mitigate the workman's sufferings,
we direct the Registry to place the matter under the caption 'For Orders' for
consideration of compliance.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
March 24, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
NAFR
Uploaded on 25.03.2026
