IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.W.J.C. No. 2797 of 1999 (R)
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, B.S.City & Anr. ... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. J.C.
--------
9/ 12.02.2009
. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of
an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the entire
proceeding of M.J.Case No. 5/1998 of the court of the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro filed by the respondent No. 2 under
section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It appears that in the initial round the matter was considered
by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 104 of
1983 (R) wherein the Division Bench specifically held as under:-
“We do not think that the respondent-company should be
made to pay the back wages for no service rendered ………”.
Further a Special Leave Petition was preferred against this
specific direction of denial of back wages in Civil Appeal No. 2052
of 1990. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24th April,
1990 modified the order and held that “the appellant should be
entitled to four years remuneration and quantified it to Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees seventy five thousand) and the order and direction of the
High Court was modified to that extent. There is no denial of the
fact that the amount of Rs.75,000/- has been paid. Pursuant there
to there was another clarification order in Contempt Petition No.
185 of 1991 preferred by respondent No. 2 and it was specifically
directed as under:-
“We are of the view that in the facts and circumstance of the
case three years weightage for the past period would
appropriately compensate the petitioner in regard to the
period during which he was not in service.”
The management also complied with the direction issued by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and instead of three years gave the
weightage /seniority of 5 years and 9 months which was beyond
the direction and rather in excess of the direction.
It appears that thereafter again a Contempt Petition was
filed by the petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated
2.
17.9.1992 and again the respondent No. 2 preferred an application
under Sub Section (2) of 33-C of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
for computation of basic wages and other benefits from 3.7.1989 to
31.3.1993 amounting to Rs.16373/- and an order was passed in
M.J. Case No. 2 of 1993 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court on 2.8.1996 directing the petitioner-management to pay
Rs.16373/-. Even this has been complied with. Thereafter another
M.J. Case No. 5 of 1996 was filed by Respondent No. 2 in which
again the order was passed under Sub-Section (2) of 33-C for
payment of further amount.
It appears that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has not
even bothered to consider the orders/direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and has erroneously entertained petitions after
petitions under Sub Section (2) of 33-C of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 which is even otherwise barred and not maintainable
more so when the direction issued is in contravention and against
the specific direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the Order
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in M.J. Case
No. 5/1998 is quashed.
D.S. (Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)