Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs Their Workman Tarun Kumar on 8 August, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 LAB. I. C. 3846, 2017 (3) AJR 847
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No.3944 of 2016
-----
Employers in relation to the management of
MC. Nally Sayaji Engineering Co. Ltd.,
Kumardhubi. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
Their Workman Tarun Kumar. .......... Respondent.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha (2), Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
------
I.A. Nos.5532/2017 & 6454/2017:
06/08.08.2017: In I.A. No.5532 of 2017, the petitioner-Management has prayed for staying the operation of the impugned award dated 23rd March, 2016 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No.1 of 2014.
In I.A. No.6454 of 2017, the respondent-workman has prayed for providing benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-workman, submits that the service of the respondent-workman was retrenched by the petitioner- Management and against the said order of retrenchment a reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad. After industrial adjudication, the award was delivered on 23rd March, 2016, holding, inter alia, that the retrenchment of the respondent-workman is unjustified and, as such he has been directed to be reinstated on the post of Security Supervisor as permanent employee with continuity of service as well as 50% back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date of reinstatement. It is further submitted that since the petitioner-Management has challenged the said award before this Court by way of present writ petition, which is pending adjudication, the respondent- workman is entitled to receive the benefit in terms with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that the Respondent-workman has not been gainfully employed since the date he was retrenched by the petitioner-Management and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act.
-2-Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Management has no objection to the payment of wages in terms with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act to the respondent-workman, yet he submits that since the matter is pending before this Court and the petitioner- Management has a good case on merit, the implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 23rd March, 2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No.1 of 2014 may be stayed.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material available on record, I think it proper to stay the impugned award dated 23 rd March, 2016. Accordingly, the implementation and operation of the impugned award dated 23rd March, 2016 is stayed. However, the petitioner-Management is directed to make payment of wages in terms with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act including the arrears thereof to the respondent-workman forthwith.
I.A. Nos.5532/2017 & 6454 of 2017 are disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/