Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union ... vs Shri B Trivedi General Manager Admn ... on 4 February, 2016

Author: D. N. Patel

Bench: D. N. Patel

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 439 of 2014
                                     --------
     Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, Ranchi through its General Secretary,
     Sanat Kumar Mukherjee son of Sri Bishwanath Mukherjee, resident of
     Sahdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, PO- Hehal, PS- Sukhdeo Nagar, District-
     Ranchi
                                                       ......     Petitioner
                             Versus
     1.    Sri B. Trivedi, General Manager (Administration), Central Coalfields
     Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO- Ranchi, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi
     2.    The State of Jharkhand
                                                       ......   Opp.Parties
                                     --------
     CORAM:           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
                             --------
     For the petitioner:             Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
     For the State:                  JC to GP-VI
     For the C.C.L.:                 Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
                             --------
     Order No. 02: Dated 4th February, 2016

Per D. N. Patel, J.:

1. This contempt petition has been preferred for the alleged breach of an order passed by this Court dated 29 th July, 2013 in W.P.(S) No. 6021 of 2010.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the amount of over- time is to be received by the members of the original petitioner-Union.
3. Looking to several factual aspects, involved in the matter about the work done by the concerned employees and that too for how many hours, it appears that evidence for every over-time work and the amount for the day, prevailing as on that day, is to be verified, for which huge data is to be collected and verified and hence, I am not inclined to entertain this contempt petition.
4. Nonetheless, liberty is reserved with the respondents to pass necessary order, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. This contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed, with the aforesaid observations.

( D.N. Patel, J. ) A.K.Verma/