IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
L.P.A. NO.358 of 2008
----
Sri Bidyadhar Mahato & Ors. ........ Appellants.
Versus
Management of M/s.Bajrang Mica Co. Ltd. and Ors. .... Respondents.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
---
For the Appellant: Mr.S.K.Laik.
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P.I.
-----
07/15.07.2009
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to allow
the writ petition partly by setting aside the award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal in favour of the appellants-workmen to the
extent that they would be entitled for payment of compensation
for the period during which the respondent-factory was under
closure.
It is relevant to recollect that the specific term of
reference which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication is as
follows:-
“Whether the workmen employed by M/s. Bajrang Mica
Company Private Ltd., Jamdharia, P.O.Chas, District-
Bokaro are entitled to get the pay and other benefits for
the period of closure from 19.11.1990? If not, what relief
they are entitled to?”
After adjudication of the aforesaid reference, the
Tribunal was pleased to hold that the appellants-workmen would
be entitled to wages for the period during which factory was
under closure but simultaneously was also pleased to hold that
the closure was bad in the eye of law. However, there was no
positive direction to re-start the factory.
The respondent-management assailed the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal before the learned Single Judge
by filing a writ petition and it was contended before the learned
Single Judge that although compensation for the period of closure
could be held payable by the respondent-management to the
appellants-workmen, yet the finding of the Tribunal was perverse,
2.
in so far as the finding of fact recorded in regard to the closure
was bad in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge, therefore,
allowed the writ petition partly and set aside the finding in regard
to the closure meaning thereby that the finding of fact recorded
by the Tribunal holding therein that the closure was bad in the
eye of law, was quashed and set aside. However, the learned
Single Judge was further pleased to hold that the appellants-
workmen would be entitled to compensation for the period during
which they had discharged duty. Thus, the writ petition was
partly allowed in favour of the respondent-management against
which this appeal had been preferred by the appellants-workmen.
Learned counsel for the appellants-workmen
strenuously emphasized that the award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal was fit to be upheld and the learned Single Judge was in
error in setting aside the same by holding that the closure of he
industry was justified.
We, however, do not feel persuaded to accept this
contention for the specific term of reference quoted hereinbefore
clearly indicates that the reference was framed and referred to
the Tribunal for adjudication of the question only to the extent
whether compensation would be paid to the appellants-workmen
for the period during which they had discharged duty although
the factory was under closure. The reference, however, was also
to the effect as to what other relief or reliefs the workmen could
claim. But under this Clause, the specific question as to whether
closure of the factory was justified or not was never the term of
reference before the Tribunal and the Tribunal thus, while holding
that the appellants-workmen were entitled to compensation for
the period during which they had discharged duty, exceeded its
jurisdiction by holding that the closure was bad in the eye of law.
Besides this, the Tribunal itself has not granted any relief to the
appellants-workmen to the extent that it would be entitled to
assert for re-opening of the industry. Thus, we fully concur with
the view of the learned Single Judge in so far as the finding of
fact in regard to the closure of the industry is concerned, as
determination of the same was clearly beyond the term of
reference.
The learned Single Judge has already allowed the
claim of compensation/wages to the appellants-workmen for the
3.
period during which they had discharged their duty under closure
period. Thus, we find no reason for the appellants to assail the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal thus, has no substance. Consequently,
the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( D.K.Sinha, J )
Biswas