Jharkhand High Court
Workman Ashok Kumar Burnwal vs Management Of M/S Prabhat Khab on 6 August, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR JHAR R 598, (2010) 4 JCR 309 (JHA)
Author: Pradeep Kumar
Bench: Pradeep Kumar
IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (L) No. 1437 of 2007
Workman-Ashok Kumar Burnwal Petitioner (s)
Versus
Management of M/s Prabhat Khabar Respondent(s)
... ... ...
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
... ... ...
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s S. N. Das, V. Divya, Adv.
For the Respondents : M/s Satish Bakshi, M.A. Khan,
N. Bakshi.
... ... ...
5 / 6.08.2010.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the employer.
The workman has challenged the award, dated 6th September, 2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Reference Case No. 1 of 2004, by which the award in Annexure-'4' and reference made to the Labour Court which is as under :-
"Whether the termination of Shri Ashok Kumar Burnwal, Office In-Charge-cum-Messenger, Deoghar by the Management of M/s Prabhat Khabar, Ranchi is justified? If not what relief is he entitled to? "
The Labour Court instead of deciding the dispute and the reference made to it by the impugned award in the midst of evidences being taken by the Management decided the matter on preliminary issue on the objection filed by the Management and on the basis of the rejoinder of the same given by the workman and came to a finding that the petitioner-workman had no relationship of the employer and employee and Shri Ashok Kumar Burnwal was never a workman under the Management.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it will appear from the order-sheet of the Court, dated 13th July, 2006 at Page-89 that although earlier the workman failed to file affidavit of his witnesses in spite of time being given to him on 19th July, 2006, taking sympathetic view, learned court passed an order that after the closure of evidences of management, he will get an opportunity for adducing his evidences that it will appear that on the next date fixed the last witness of the management was examined on 19th August, 2006 and for cross-examination of last witness No. 4, Shri Sanjit Kumar Mandal, the workman was given time for cross-examination. On 23rd August, 2006 the said witness Shri Sanjit Kumar Mandal was cross-examined by the workman and he was discharged and thereafter, in the application, dated 10th August, 2006, filed by the management since rejoinder was already filed by the workman vide 26th October, 2005, the labour court heard the matter on the preliminary point and on the next date passed the award which is bad in law and fit to be quashed since unfair labour practice was done by the labour court in not giving an opportunity to the workman to adduce his evidences and by closing the evidence abruptly the matter was decided on preliminary ground.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Management i.e. Prabhat Khabar that it will appear from the order- sheet of the Court that on 1st December, 2005 till 14th June, 2006, on every date the Court directed the workman to file affidavit of his witnesses to whom he desired to examine in the case, but he failed to do the same and hence, the case for giving evidences was closed on 14th June, 2006 and as such, the labour court had no option, but to decide the matter on the preliminary point. He has further submitted that on 23rd August, 2006, also when the Court after closing the evidence of the employer when it started hearing the matter on preliminary point on the objection filed by the workman dated 10th August, 2006, no such objection was filed by the workman that he wants to adduce evidence, as per the order of the Court, dated 13th July, 2006, and as such there is no illegality committed by the Labour Court and the award is fit to be quashed After hearing both the parties and going through the order-sheet of the Court, I find that no doubt the court had given ample opportunities to the workman-the petitioner from 1st December, 2005 to till 14th June, 2006 for filing the affidavit of the witnesses which he wanted to rely on. On 14th June, 2006, finally no affidavit was filed, in spite of the repeated directions. Hence, Learned labour Court had no option but, to close evidence of the workman. But it is also evident from the order-sheet dated 13th July, 2006, that when the matter was renewed by the workman, the court took the sympathetic view, considering that the workman belongs to a weaker sections of the society and should be given an opportunity to adduce his evidences and vide order-sheet dated 13th July, 2006, directed the workman to produce his evidences after closure of the evidence of the Management.
In that view of the matter, when the Management evidences was closed on 23rd August, 2006, final cross-examination of Management, witness No. 4 Shri Sanjit Kumar Mandal, it was incumbent upon the labour Court to fix a date for the evidence of the workman, who was given opportunity to produce evidence, as per his own order, dated 13th June, 2006, and instead of giving that opportunity, labour court took a reverse turn by dismissing the matter on preliminary point after closing evidence of the Management. Either he should have decided the preliminary point before the evidences started between the parties or he should have waited for the evidences to close and to decide preliminary point along with the final award after hearing both the parties.
In that view of the matter, in my opinion the workman was not given fair opportunity to adduce his evidence and of hearing.
The impugned award, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar, dated 6th September, 2006, passed in Reference Case No. 1 of 2004, is quashed being perverse and the matter is remanded back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar with a direction to fix a date for evidence of the workman after giving him notice of the same and thereafter, proceed, in accordance with law.
The petitioner-workman is also directed to appear before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar on 28th September, 2010. The Management is also directed to remain present so that the court may fix a date and proceed further in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ application is allowed.
(Pradeep kumar, J.) Sandeep/