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 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Central Coalfields Limited vs Sri Siraj Mian on 4 December, 2019

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Kailash Prasad Deo

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                            L.P.A No. 379 of 2012

               Central Coalfields Limited                           ---    ---    Appellant
                                                   Versus
               Sri Siraj Mian, TRW & others                         ---    ---   Respondents
                                                 ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo

---

For the Appellant: M/s A.K. Das, Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Resps:1,5-8: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate

---

27/ 04.12.2019 Appeal is of 2012. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge which has upheld the award rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh, allowing the application of the Respondents / Workmen under section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.

2. As per office notes, service of notice on the substituted heirs of Respondent No. 18 i.e. Respondent No. 18(A) to 18 (E) have not been effected, as the process server's report shows "Recipient address not found". Office note further indicates that notice on Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 and substituted heirs of Respondent No. 17 i.e. Respondent Nos. 17(A), 17(B), 17(E) and 17 (F) have been validly served, whereas substituted Respondent Nos. 17(C) and 17(D) have been deleted from the Memo of Appeal as they are reported to have died vide order dated 15.04.2019. Office note further indicates that notice on Respondent Nos. 19 to 26 have been validly served. It further appears that despite order dated 29.06.2017 whereby direction to serve notice on Respondent Nos. 18(A) to 18(E) through Officer-in-charge, Charhi Police Station, Hazaribagh has been issued, report of such service has not been received.

3. In those circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has sought time to take steps for substituted service of notice on the unserved Respondents i.e. 18(A) to 18(E). Such prayer has been made through I.A. No. 3370/2015.

4. Let such steps for substituted service be undertaken within a period of two weeks, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. Office to issue draft of notice to the learned counsel for the appellant soon thereafter. Affidavit showing service of notice through paper publication be filed within three weeks thereafter. I.A. No. 3370/2015 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Kailash Prasad Deo, J) Ranjeet/