IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
L.P.A No. 424 OF 2009
M/s.Bharat Refractories Ltd.
Vs.
1.Basiruddin Ansari
2.Rameshwar Prasad
3.Sohrai Turi
4.Dwarika Singh
5.Mohan Mahato
6.Bhubaneshwar Prasad
7.Mahabir Rajak
8.Durdan Ram
9.Ghanshyam Giri
10.Ram Chanda Mahto
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Appellant/Petitioner Mr.G.M.Mishra
For the Respondent -----
---------
3/17.3.2010
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, M/s.Bharat Refractories
Ltd., against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of
review petitions, which were directed against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No.4125/2004 on 9.5.2006 along with a batch of
several other writ petitions, directing the respondent/appellant herein to determine the
compensation payable to the petitioners/respondents herein in terms of clause (G)(ii)
read with (H) (i) of the 2002 Scheme and pay the compensation within a period of three
months from the date of the order. The compensation was ordered to be paid in view of
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2002.
The appellant company filed review petitions against the impugned
judgment and order and raised the question that the word, “maximum” given out in the
Hindi version has not been taken care of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment and order. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition
recording therein that the compensation will be subject to the amount not exceeding the
salary/wage on balance period of service left. The learned Single Judge finally was
pleased to hold that there was no ground for review of the impugned judgment and
order.
This appeal has been preferred b y the appellant-company against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.8.2009 by which the review referred to
hereinbefore was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured hard to impress upon this
Court that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in the impugned judgment
as the word, “maximum” has not been correctly interpreted. But we have noticed that
the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, against which the review was
sought, has not stated or observed anything in so far as the maximum amount of
compensation was to be paid to the employees seeking voluntary retirement. The
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was sought to be reviewed,
merely held that the respondent-employees seeking voluntary retirement would be
entitled to the compensation as per the Scheme of 2002, vide clause (G)(ii) read with
(H) (i) of the 2002 Scheme and pay the compensation within a period of three months
from the date of the order. Thus, the learned Single Judge has not made any
observation in regard to the amount that was to be calculated and merely directed that
the payment be made as per the Scheme. It is, thus, obvious that the payment had to
be made to the respondent-employees only as per the Scheme and the question as to
how much amount was payable was not an issue in the writ petition and only the
direction was issued to pay compensation.
Therefore, the appellant-company seems to have unncessarily filed a
review petition before the learned Single Judge raising a controversy that the word,
“maximum” has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the words,
“maximum” and “minimum” were not even touched upon by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge had merely observed that the payment be made as per the
Scheme of 2002 referred to hereinbefore. Thus, the appellant-company obviously would
be paying compensation as per the Scheme of 2002. What exactly is the quantum of
compensation, would be governed by the Scheme of 2002.
In our view, the appellant-company has unncessarily resorted to this tactic
of not making payment of compensation to the employees seeking voluntary retirement
by raising an unnecessary controversy and this ploy adopted by the appellant-company
is deprecated and the review appears to have been filed by the appellant clearly with
an oblique motive in order to defer making of payment, which we do not appreciate.
The appellant-company having been merely directed to make payment as per the
Scheme of 2002, it was certainly not open for the appellant-company to unnecessarily
raise a controversy out of the blue as to what would be the interpretation of the work,
“maximum”. Any provision which is made under the Scheme, obviously, has to be
carried out by the appellant-company for calculating the payment of compensation.
Thus, the appeal has no substance and under the circumstance, is dismissed with a
cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand only), to be paid by the appellant-company.
(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J)
(R.R.Prasad,J)
dey