W. P. (L) No. 3623 of 2003
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
------------
Management of Steel Authority of India,
Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro . .... ... Petitioner
Versus
The workman Sri S.D. Pandey .... ... Respondent
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
-------
By Court :- The petitioner, Management of Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel
Plant, by filing this writ petition has challenged the Award dated 4.12.2002 passed
by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, whereby the Labour Court directed
reinstatement of the workman with 35% back wages along with all other
consequential benefits except the back wages for the period from 28.2.1989 to
August 1990.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the workman S.D. Pandey was
a Mazdoor and he joined the service of Bokaro Steel Plant on 2.6.1973 but he was
always absenting from duty unauthorizedly right from 1976 till he was finally
charge sheeted and dismissed from the service of the Company after due and
proper enquiry.
3. On the other hand, the case of the workman is that he is a displaced
person, whose house, homestead and agricultural lands were acquired for setting
up the Bokaro Steel Plant. He was appointed under a scheme under which
displaced persons were given appointment and accordingly, he joined his service
on 2.6.1973. In course of his service, he developed some disease, so he was forced
to go on leave on medical advice and he never absented from his service without
prior sanction and information. He fell seriously ill on 21.2.1989 because of
jaundice and then was hospitalized for treatment. According to the petitioner, he
had informed about his sickness by sending applications supported with medical
2
certificate to the Company. Further case of the workman is that the punishment of
dismissal from the service is illegal and unjustified and in any case is harsh and
disproportionate to charge levelled against him not commensurate with gravity of
the misconduct.
4. During pendency of this application, by filing an interlocutory
application, a prayer was made on behalf of the workman that the Management be
directed to pay full back wages and current wages during the pendency of the writ
petition as envisaged under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In
paragraph-6 of the said interlocutory application, the workman did specifically
state that he was sitting idle since the date of his dismissal. By order dated
10.8.2004
, the said application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act filed by the
petitioner was allowed.
5. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the concerned workman has already reached the age of
superannuation on 30.6.2005 during pendency of this writ petition and therefore,
the question of his reinstatement in service cannot and does not arise. He,
however, submits that the direction of the Labour Court granting 35% of the back
wages is not legal and valid since the onus was on the workman to establish the
fact that after he was dismissed from service, he was not gainfully employed
anywhere, but the petitioner failed to discharge the said onus.
6. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the concerned workman submitted that the findings of facts arrived at by the
Labour Court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record cannot be
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction since the writ
of certiorari is a Supervisory Jurisdiction and in exercise of such jurisdiction only
any error of law can be corrected not any error of facts howsoever grave it may be.
7. Considering the above facts as well as the rival submissions
made by the parties, I am of the view that Mr. G.M. Mishra, has rightly submitted
3
that since the petitioner has now reached the age of his superannuation on
30.6.2005 during pendency of the writ petition and as such, now the question for
reinstatement of the workman has become infructuous.
8. So far as the question of payment of 35% of back wages
along with all consequential benefits as directed by the Labour Court is concerned,
I find that the Labour Court on the appreciation of the evidence and materials on
record has come to a finding on facts and then has ordered for payment of 35% of
the back wages and this finding on consideration and on appreciation of facts and
evidence on record cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India since as has been held in the case of Syed
Yakoob vrs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 wherein
it has been held that the findings on facts arrived at by the Labour Court or the
Tribunal cannot be questioned by the High Court while exercising Supervisory
powers. No jurisdictional error in the impugned order has been pointed out.
9. In view of the discussion and findings above, I do not find
any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed but
without any costs. The award of the Labour Court regarding payment of back
wages as aforesaid be implemented by the respondent-Management forthwith
within a period of eight weeks, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual payment.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 4th of August 2009
N.A.F.R./R.Kr.