Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Food And Civil Supplies ... vs Devendra Prasad Yadav And Anr on 18 May, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2017 LAB. I. C. 633, 2016 (4) AJR 543, (2017) 1 JCR 158 (JHA), (2016) 3 JLJR 385
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 558 of 2014
With
I.A. No. 1313 of 2015
With
I.A. No. 1314 of 2015
Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through the
District Manager, Sandeep Bakshi, S/o Late A.P. Bakshi, resident of 54, Sanjay
Villa, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi ... Appellant
Versus
Devendra Prasad Yadav, son of Late Chandra Deo Prasad Yadav, resident of
Mahabirnagar, Near Railway Line, Bhuda, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar,
District Dhanbad ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
For the Appellant : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
05/ Dated: 18 May, 2016
th
Oral Order
Per D.N. Patel, J.:
I.A. No. 1313 of 2015
1.This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 6 to 14, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 53 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1313 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 558 of 2014
4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 2014 in W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed and, hence, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this 2 Letters Patent Appeal.
5. Factual Matrix:
● It appears that the appellant is the management and management had engaged respondentworkman on 10th October, 1979 as a daily wager. ● Thereafter, the services of the respondent was terminated with effect from 25th June, 1983.
● The respondentworkman raised an industrial dispute and the term of the reference was as under:
"Whether the termination of services of Shri Devendra Prasad YadavSalesman by the management of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Dhanbad is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"
● Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reference was made being Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 before the Labour Court, Dhanbad who passed an award dated 1st June, 1994 and there was reinstatement with full back wages i.e. from the date of retrenchment.
● Against this order, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1839 of 1995 was preferred by the management, which was decided by the Hon'ble Patna High Court on 12th December, 1995 and so far as order of reinstatement is concerned, it was confirmed and so far as back wages is concerned, it was slightly modified and the back wages were awarded not from the date of retrenchment, but, from the date of reference.
● Later on 17th November, 1999, the respondentworkman was reinstated. ● The respondentworkman preferred an application being M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before Labour Court, Dhanbad, in which, the workman demanded pay scale, whereas, he was only a casual employee. Thus, demand of payment of salary, which was on the basis of pay scale, was dismissed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad vide order 3 dated 22nd December, 2004.
● Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the respondentworkman against the order passed in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 because salary which was demanded on the basis of pay scale was not granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12th April, 2006 and the workman was relegated to raise industrial dispute or if he was aggrieved by the award dated 1st June, 1994, he may take recourse under existing laws.
● Thereafter, Civil Review No. 82 of 2007 was instituted by the respondent workman which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2nd November, 2007.
● Again the respondentworkman preferred a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Labour Court dated 22nd December, 2004 in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001. This writ petition was a second round of litigation by the respondentworkman, so far as M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 is concerned. The said writ petition preferred by the respondentworkman was disposed of vide order dated 12th August, 2010 and as the workman was demanding salary on the basis of pay scale like permanent workman, whereas, in award dated 1st June, 1994 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991, there was order of only reinstatement with full back wages meaning thereby to, the position of the respondentworkman is restored as it was prior to termination and nothing beyond that. A casual employee or daily wager will never be converted into permanent workman because no such reference was made under Section 10 when Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 was referred to the Labour Court and, hence, while disposing of W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the respondentworkman may raise industrial 4 dispute.
● Again the respondentworkman took shelter of M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is also a second round of litigation, so far as M.J. Case preferred under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned. Instead of raising industrial dispute for demanding permanent status, short cuts are adopted by the respondent workman and the Labour Court, Dhanbad this time while passing an order dated 9th June, 2011 treated the respondentworkman as permanent workman and passed an order to make the payment of Rs.9,28,140/ and if this amount is not paid within two months, interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded by the Labour Court, Dhanbad. Thus what was not granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 in award dated 1st June, 1994, thus what was not granted by the Labour Court in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 vide order dated 22nd December, 2004, thus what was not granted by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 vide order dated 12th April, 2006, thus what was not granted in Civil Review No. 82 of 2007 by this Court vide order dated 2nd November, 2007, thus what was not granted in W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 by this Court vide order dated 12th August, 2010, was granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 vide order dated 9 th June, 2011 without any industrial dispute raised by the respondentworkman. A daily wager was converted into permanent workman and huge award was also awarded.
● Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010, W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 was preferred by the appellant before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd September, 2014 and, hence, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5
6. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant:
● Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondentworkman was engaged as a daily worker on 10th October, 1979 by the appellant (original petitioner). The services of the respondentworkman were terminated with effect from 25th June, 1983 and the respondentworkman raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 and reference was made being Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. The term of the reference was challenged as to the termination order. Never industrial dispute was raised by the respondentworkman about his status.
● It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that when the award was passed in favour of the workman for reinstatement with full back wages meaning thereby to the respondentworkman is getting the same status as it was prior to his termination and nothing beyond that and, therefore, in subsequent litigations under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 when the respondentworkman demanded salary on the basis of pay scale, as if the respondentworkman is a permanent workman, such prayer was never granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad. In all subsequent litigations, such prayer was never granted by this Court also. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, Dhanbad while allowing M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 nor it was properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 vide order dated 22nd September, 2014.
● It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the status of the workman will never be changed even after his reinstatement i.e. from daily rated worker to the permanent workman. In fact, while disposing of W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 which was preferred by the workman, this Court has passed order dated 12th August, 2010, in which, learned Single Judge has already mentioned 6 that the respondentworkman may raise industrial dispute and without raising industrial dispute, the respondentworkman again preferred M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010. Thus without any reference under Section 10, Labour Court, Dhanbad granted permanent status to a daily rated worker in an application preferred under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011, vide order dated 22nd September, 2014.
● Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be utilized by the worker to get the salaries etc. which are already quantified in the award or which are already fixed by the management. If any pay scale or the post of workman is yet to be finalized by the Labour Court under the reference, such type of pay scale with a change of status of the workman could not have been granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011.
● Application under Section 33C (2) and reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act are absolutely different. Instead of raising industrial dispute, directly an application was preferred by the respondentworkman under Section 33C (2) and that too when previously preferred M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 was already dismissed by the same Court i.e. Labour Court, Dhanbad vide order dated 22nd December, 2004. The respondentworkman was preferring again and again applications under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, even though previously preferred application was already dismissed, thereafter, even the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 and W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008, preferred by the respondentworkman, were also 7 dismissed. Thus what was not granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad previously in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 and what was not granted by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 and W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008, has been granted by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 in grosses violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 2014 in W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent:
● Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 vide order dated 22nd September, 2014. Moreover, in the award passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991, already said Court has passed an award and has observed that this respondentworkman is a permanent workman and, therefore, reinstatement and full back wages awards were awarded.
● Moreover, reinstatement was made on 17th November, 1999 after the contempt application was preferred by the respondentworkman. ● It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that once the award is passed in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 on 1st June, 1994 awarding permanent status as a workman, the respondent had preferred M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for getting back wages on the basis of pay scale and no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in awarding Rs.9,28,140/ vide order dated 9 th June, 2011 directing the appellant to make the payment of the aforesaid amount within period of two months, failing which, further interest @ 12% per annum 8 was saddled.
● Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that there are few observations made here and there in the award passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 especially in paragraph 6 gives him a permanent status. The award passed in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 which has been further referred in subsequent orders, has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011. R E A S O N S:
8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 2014 in W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 and we hereby also quash and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 dated 9th June, 2011 for the following facts and reasons:
(i) The appellant (original petitioner) had given employment to the respondentworkman as a daily rated worker on 10th October, 1979.
(ii) Thereafter, the services of the respondentworkman were terminated on 25th June, 1983 and, therefore, the respondentworkman has raised industrial dispute and ultimately under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reference was made to the Labour Court, Dhanbad. The term of the reference reads as under:
"Whether the termination of services of Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav Salesman by the management of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Dhanbad is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) While passing an award by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, reinstatement with full back wages was granted and the order of termination was quashed and set aside. Thus, the workman was to be 9 reinstated with full back wages.
(iv) It appears that for slight modification, writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1839 of 1995 was preferred by the management in the Hon'ble High Court of Patna and back wages were slightly modified i.e. not from the date of retrenchment, but, from the date of reference. Ultimately, the workman was reinstated on 17th November, 1999.
(v) Now, the respondentworkman treated himself as a permanent workman. This is an erroneous belief on the part of the respondent workman and, therefore, wrong application being M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 was preferred by the respondentworkman demanding back wages on the basis of pay scale. It ought to be kept in mind that the order of back wages given by the Labour Court, Dhanbad was never altering his status. The workman remain as it is i.e. if he is daily rated worker, he remains as it is. Thus, reinstatement with full back wages entitles the respondentworkman to restore his status, what was prior to his termination and nothing beyond that. The said M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 was dismissed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad vide order dated 22nd December, 2004. This application was preferred because few observations were made by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in paragraph 6 of the award dated 1st June, 1994 while deciding Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. Paragraph 6 thereof reads as under:
"6. W.W.1 is the concerned workman Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav himself. He had said that he was appointed by the Corporation as Salesman and was posted at Maithan and he worked till July 83 and subsequently he removed from service. No notice was given to him and no chargesheet was issued to him and no enquiry was conducted against him before doing away with his service which is illegal. It was suggested to him by the learned counsel for the management that his services were not taken when sale centre at Maithan was closed, but he denied the suggestion, simple suggestion is no evidence. There is 10 nothing on record to indicate that the workman did not work continuously and work was taken from him when sale centre was closed. The workman has said that he worked for more than 240 days in the year 1980, 1981 and 1982 and his services were continuous. The management could have produced salary register of workman to reap the consequences and to indicate that he did not work for more than 240 days in calendar year. The law is well settled that even daily rated workman acquires temporary status after continuous employment for 120 days and he becomes permanent after 240 days. The workman was continuous service for more than 240 days in three calendar years and he will be deemed to have acquired permanent status."
(emphasis supplied)
(vi) It further appears from the aforesaid observations that as the workman has completed 240 days, unnecessarily the Labour Court, Dhanbad observed that the workman has now been converted into permanent workman. This was never a reference, at all nor this is a law, at all. The law is absolutely otherwise. Even if the respondentworkman has completed 240 days in the employment, that does not mean that a daily rated worker is converted into permanent workman, automatically. Industrial Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference.
(vii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, as reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408, in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. In the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the said award, the High Court upheld the contention of the appellant that the respondents were not entitled to regularisation in view of the well settled law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra wherein it has been categorically held that completion of 240 days or more does not entitle/import the right of regularisation. The High Court, therefore, held that the impugned award, to the extent it directed for regularisation of the respondents, could not be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) 11
(viii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh, as reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, in paragraph 18 as under:
"18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days' work does not confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in service. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Workmen and paras 34 and 35 of the Report are being reproduced below:
"34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case of E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.
35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as regularisation is governed by the statutory rules."
(emphasis supplied)
(ix) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of TISCO Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, as reported in (2014) 1 SCC 536, in 12 paragraph 16 as under:
"16. The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature of that statute. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine itself within the scope of the subjectmatter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. This is the view taken by this Court in a number of cases including in National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. It is for this reason that it becomes the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to make the reference appropriately which is reflective of the real/exact nature of "dispute" between the parties."
(emphasis supplied)
(x) Thus even if the respondentworkman has completed 240 days in service, that does not mean that automatically he will acquire the status of permanent workman and, therefore, the observations made in paragraph 6 cannot change the status of the respondentworkman and, hence, M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad vide order dated 22nd December, 2004.
(xi) W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 was preferred by the respondentworkman challenging the order passed in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 and it was alleged by the respondentworkman that he was entitled to pay scale and calculation of back wages should be on the basis of pay scale given to the permanent workman. This prayer was not allowed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006 vide order dated 12th April, 2006.
(xii) Thereafter, civil review application being No. 82 of 2007 preferred by the respondentworkman was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2nd November, 2007.
(xiii) Thereafter, W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008 was instituted by the respondentworkman challenging the order passed in M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001, in which, prayer made by the respondentworkman was not 13 granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12th August, 2010 and following observations were made in the said order:
"It is submitted that, according to the writ petition itself, in paragraph 12 the petitioner has stated that the matter of implementation of the award for grant of permanent status is pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, as per petition filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2007, and by supplementary counter affidavit the management has although stated in para 15 that as per notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, he appeared and matter is sub judice and as such, the impugned order rightly stated that as per the award, the petitioner was given monetary benefit and further he can claim, if the said proceeding, pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, is allowed.
Now, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner files an order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad stating that his dispute with regard to his regularization has been disposed of after conciliation and he is directed to go to the competent court.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to raise the dispute afresh before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad and the impugned order dated 22.12.2004, by which his claim for further monetary benefit, has been rejected, should not be treated as res judicata.
Since, the claim of regularization has nothing to do with the monetary benefit, the same cannot be treated as res judicata. The petitioner is at liberty to raise his claim before the appropriate court, as directed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
(xiv) Thus, in view of the aforesaid order, the respondentworkman had made a prayer that he will raise industrial dispute afresh before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, but, never such attempt was made by the respondentworkman i.e. application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(xv) Instead of raising industrial dispute that he should be awarded 14 permanent status, again M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 was preferred before the very same Labour Court, Dhanbad and again demand was raised that the respondentworkman should be paid back wages on the basis of pay scale which is given to the permanent workman. It ought to be kept in mind by the Labour Court, Dhanbad that previously preferred M.J. Case nd No. 05 of 2001 was already dismissed vide order dated 22 December, 2004. Again and again similar type of applications should not have been entertained, at all. It was duty of the respondentworkman to raise industrial dispute, if he is claiming to be converted himself from daily rated worker to permanent workman. The status of the workman cannot be changed/altered in an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for which, reference under Section 10 is a must. It appears that grossest error has been committed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad by allowing M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 and granted the respondentworkman permanent status and has calculated back wages at Rs.9,28,140/ on the basis of pay scale which is to be given to the permanent workman. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. The order passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 is against all canons of basic jurisprudence of labour laws. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 vide order dated 22nd September, 2014.
(xvi) It appears that the respondentworkman has tried again and again to prefer application under Section 33C (2) on the basis of paragraph 6 of the award passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. This paragraph has been read and reread by the learned counsel for the respondentworkman. It appears that the observations 15 made in paragraph 6 by the Labour Court, Dhanbad while passing award dated 1st June, 1994 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991 never gives status of permanent workman to the respondentworkman merely because he has completed 240 days in continuous years. In fact, there was no need to pass such remark by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. The law is absolutely otherwise, as stated hereinabove. It is a wrong notion in the mind of the respondentworkman that as he has completed 240 days in service, automatically he becomes permanent workman. Nobody becomes automatically permanent workman, even though he has completed 240 days in service. The Labour Court, Dhanbad in paragraph 6 has observed that "he will be deemed to have acquired permanent status". This half a sentence used in paragraph 6 has given generation to several litigations as under:
(a) M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001;
(b) W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2006;
(c) Civil Review No. 82 of 2007;
(d) W.P.(L) No. 5893 of 2008;
(e) M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010; and
(f) W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011
(xvii) All these litigations were useless. In fact, observations made in paragraph 6 never confirms the respondentworkman a permanent status because there were no such terms of reference. Labour Court, Dhanbad has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing observation in paragraph 6 of the award dated 1st June, 1994 in Reference Case No. 6 of 1991. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 vide order dated 22nd September, 2014.
(xviii) Moreover, initially M.J. Case No. 05 of 2001 was already 16 dismissed. Again second M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 could not have been allowed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd September, 2014 in W.P.(L) No. 4639 of 2011 and we hereby also quash and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 74 of 2010 dated 9th June, 2011.
10. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 1314 of 2015
11. This stay application is, hereby, also disposed of as the main Letters Patent Appeal has been finally decided by this Court.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) Ajay/