Jharkhand High Court
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Bokaro ... on 10 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR518(JHR)]
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ran-jan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
2. The Petitioner prays for quashing a portion of the Award dated 19.5.1995 (An-nexure-1) passed by the Respondent No. 1.(Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City) in reference case No. 29 of 1988 by which full back wages and other consequential benefits have been awarded. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other portion of the award i.e. the award of reinstatement is not being challenged as the petitioner has already been reinstated in service. The only portion, with which they are aggrieved, is the order of full back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 (i.e. the concerned workman, Kedar Mahato) was a habitual absentee. He was absent for 75 days during the months of July to September, 1986 and again from 12.2.1987 to 17.04.1987. The absence was committed without prior permission and in an unauthorized manner. Consequently his name was struck off from the rolls of the company in terms of Clause 20 (xi) of the Certified Standing Orders. The matter led to a reference for purposes of adjudicating as to whether the action of the management was justified and as to whether he was entitled to reinstatement in service or/any other relief. The Labour Court ultimately came to a finding that the action, in terminating the services, was not proper and therefore, passed an Award holding that the Respondent No. 2 was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states and submits that true to their statements recorded at paragraph 11 of the Writ Application, they have already reinstated the Respondent No. 2 in service. However, in the same paragraph the Petitioner has stated that this reinstatement was without prejudice to its right to challenge the other part of the award by which full back wages and other consequential benefits have been awarded. In the counter-affidavit, various points have been raised on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and at paragraph 20, he has stated that the Chief Personnel Manager (Works) by order dated 6/7.3.1996 did allow reinstatement subject to the decision of this case but while taking him back in service, he was shown as a new appointee. However, such statement does not find cor-roboration upon perusal of Annexure-A which inter alia reads as follows :
"In deference to the Labour Court's Award dated 19.5.96 (pronounced on 14.8.96) passed in Reference Case No. 29/88 Sri Kedar Mahato, Ex-Khalasi. Staff No. 487604 of Hot Strip Mill (Mech. Maint), BSL, is hereby re-instated without back wages and consequential benefits to the same post on the same scale of pay, which was held by him as on 12.2.87 (i.e. the date from which his name was struck off from the rolls of the Company by order No. Pers/W/Mills/ COS/80/87-838 dated 17.4.87) and he is allowed to join his duty with immediate effect," (underlining by the Court).
5. Mr. S.N. Das submits that in fact, the Petitioner has given him reappointment inasmuch as Annexure-B shows that the subject matter thereof reads "joining report (new appointment)".
6. The submissions of Mr. S.N. Das learned counsel for the Petitioner is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the joining report does not decide the status of this case and the document which really decides the matter is Annexure-A which is the office order dated 06.03.1996 by which he was allowed reinstatement but without back wages.
7. A Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit was filed in this case on 10.06.2002 wherein at paragraph 22 the Petitioners have stated that even after reinstatement, the respondent No. 2 has not improved his conduct and remains a habitual absentee. In the same paragraph they have further inter alia, stated as follows :
"In fact, Respondent No. 2 joined on 14.3.1996 in the same old department i.e. Hot Strip Mill (which is a vital production unit of the plant) after reinstatement in partial compliance of the Award dated 19.5.1995 pronounced on 14.8.1995 in Ref. Case No. 29/88 but he again started absenting un-authorizedly thereafter due to which the petitioner's work suffered adversely. The petitioner being the employer has thus totally lost confidence in the respondent No. 2. The attendance/Absence position of respondent No. 2 even after his reinstatement and disciplinary action taken against him is as under:
(i) His attendance for the year 1996 (between March to December) had been only 145 days.
(ii) He was present only for 135 days in the whole year of 1997 and absent during remaining period for which he was issued chargesheet dated 20.3.1998 along with statement of allegation for misconduct aforesaid. Taking a lenient view that he would improve his conduct in future the respondent No. 2 was given a warning letter dated 20.3.1998.
(iii) In the year 1998 he was present only for 104 days remaining absent for the rest of the days for which he was issued chargesheet dated 7.5.1999, and was censured by letter dated 16.3.2000.
(iv) In the year 1999 he was present only for 123 days and absent for rest of the days for which he was issued third chargesheet dated 12.5.2000.
In view of the above facts respondent No. 2 is a liability in the petitioner's establishment and least interested in the job........"
8. Although the aforesaid Rejoinder was filed as early as on 10.06.2002 yet no reply thereto has been given by the Respondent No. 2 till date notwithstanding due service of the said Rejoinder.
9. That apart, the quoted portion above reveals that the Management, in spite of his habitual absenteeism, has already shown enough leniency to the Respondent No. 2 and has issued either warning or censure.
10. Considering the nature of habitual absenteeism resorted to by the Respondent No. 2 even after reinstatement, the details whereof have been stated in the Rejoinder quoted above, this Court holds that the Respondent No. 2 is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and consequently the Writ Application has got to be allowed. Since the Petitioner has already been reinstated, and since it has confined its Writ Application only to the portion relating to the full back wages and other consequential benefits, this Court orders that the Award of the Labour Court, in so far as it relates to full back wages and other consequential benefits, stands quashed and set aside.
11. The Writ Petition stands allowed. There be no order as to costs.