High Court Jharkhand High Court

Kanchan Kumar Dey & Ors vs Employers In Relation To The M on 20 July, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Kanchan Kumar Dey & Ors vs Employers In Relation To The M on 20 July, 2011
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI     
                                W.P.(L) No. 3177 of 2011
          Kanchan Kumar Dey & others              ....Petitioners 
                                         Versus 
          Employers in relation to the Management 
          of Gopalichak Colliery of M/s Bharat
          Coking Coal Ltd.                                    ...Respondent 
                                              ­­­­­­­­­
          CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL  
        For the Petitioners            :  Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Advocate           
        For the Respondent          : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate     
                              ­­­­­­­­­
                         th
        02/ Dated: 20    July, 2011
                                          

       1.

Counsel   for   the   petitioners   submitted   that   the   petitioners   are 
challenging   the   award,   passed   by   the   Central   Government   Industrial 
Tribunal, Dhanbad dated 20th  January, 2010 in Reference Case No. 65 of 
1998. 

2. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are 
the employees of a registered Cooperative Society and they are engaged 
for   cleaning   works   with   the   respondent.   They   are   claiming   for   their 
regularization in the services and because of stoppage of grant of work to 
them by the employer, a reference case was filed under Section 10 of the 
Industrial   Disputes   Act.   Petitioners   are   restraining   from   their   claim   for 
grant   of   work.   They   are   not   claiming   any   regularization   with   the 
employers. 

3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that it is 
true that they are working with the Cooperative Society. The Cooperative 
Society   is   engaged   to   do   the   cleaning   work   etc.   with   the   respondent­
management and they are satisfied, if the management gives undertaking 
before   this   Court   that   as   and   when   the   services   of   the   petitioners   are 
required, they will be engaged. 

4. Counsel   for   the   respondent   submitted   that   there   is   no   error 
committed   by   the   Central   Government   Industrial   Tribunal,   Dhanbad   in 
passing   the   impugned   award   and   there   is   no   legal   vested   right   in   the 
petitioners as claimed before the Tribunal. Nonetheless, it is submitted by 
the counsel for the respondent that if the services of the petitioners are 
required, they will be called upon to render such services. 

5. Counsel for the petitioners is satisfied by the aforesaid statements 
made by the counsel for the respondent and therefore, he is not pressing 
this writ petition, at this stage. 

2.

6. In view of this submission, this writ petition is disposed of as not 
pressed, at this stage.  

               (D.N. Patel, J)
VK/­