Jharkhand High Court
Mineral Area Development Authority vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 9 September, 2002
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.B. Gadodia, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Admitted case of the parties is that the concerned workman joined the services on 9.10.1993 and his services were terminated on 7.10.1984. He therefore, worked for a period which was less than 95 days and not 120 days or more as has been wrongly stated by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Dhanbad in paragraph 8.
3. The stand of the Management was that the concerned workman had never been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that his appointment was on account of extraneous consideration of the then Chairman, of Jharia Water Board who had thrown to the winds all Rules and Regulations and therefore, as per decision of the Government, all such appointments were terminated. The Labour Court does not answer this question at all nor deals with this issue. All that he says is that the issue relating to the Employment Exchange is not at all a relevant factor because the vacancy was not notified by the Jharia Mines Board of Health. In other words the Labour Court had skirted the issue. In fact, there is no explanation nor any defence by the workman also in relation to the aforementioned specific charge/stand of the management.
4. Another feature which compels this Court to come to a conclusion that the Award is perverse is because at paragraph 7, the Presiding Officer has drawn inferences and says that the fact relating to retention of two persons named therein makes him to come to "safe conclusion" that whereas the others have been allowed to continue yet the concerned workman has been singled out and therefore, this is a case of gross discrimination. He does not deal with the main issue and the stand of the Management to the effect that large number of employments made by the then Chairman had been found to be doubtful and therefore, the Management had taken the extreme step.
5. By therefore, recording a finding that the Management had acted discriminatorily in so far the concerned workman was concerned; the Presiding Officer should not have attempted to perpetuate an illegality. That apart, the concerned workman having, at best worked for the less than 95 days, this Court does not understand as to what prompted the Labour Court to say that the workman had actually worked for 120 days thereby conferring upon him the status of a regularly appointed temporary employee.
6. Another peculiar feature of this Award is that at paragraph 2, there is reference of the fact that being aggrieved by the orders of termination, large number of employees challenged the same before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court which did not interfere with the orders of termination. The aforementioned judgment has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Annexure 11 appended to the supplementary affidavit-cum-reply filed by them today in Court. In the aforementioned judgment at running page 13 of the affidavit referred to above the Division Bench stated as follows :
"It was then submitted that although some other employees who had been appointed in similar situation by the Chairman, their services have not been terminated. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board gave an undertaking to this Court that similar irregular appointments made by the Chairman shall be terminated within one month from today. In that view of the matter the petitioners cannot now urge that they have been discriminated in any manner. It is expected that step shall be taken to fill up the posts in accordance with law after proper advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible persons."
7. The learned Presiding Officer appears to have totally ignored the aforesaid judgment of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court although reference thereof has been made at the said paragraph 2 of the Award.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Award of reinstatement of the concerned workman with full backwages and consequential benefits cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside.
9. With aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is, accordingly, allowed.