IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 2000 of 2009
S.H. Pharmaceuticals Limited through its Director
M. Sudhakar, Hyderabad(Andhra Pradesh)...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aparesh Kr. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. J.C. to G.P.I
------
02/26.11.2009
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
The petitioner is the Management, which has challenged the
impugned award of the Labour Court, Deoghar directing
reinstatement of the dismissed employee of the petitioner with full
back wages.
I have gone through the impugned award of the Labour
Court, Deoghar and I do not find any good ground to disagree with
the reasoning therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the
decision of the Labour Court closing the evidence of the petitioner,
and submits that because of such closure the petitioner was
deprived of the opportunity of producing the alternative witness, in
place of original witness of the petitioner who had failed to turn-up.
However, it has not been shown as to what crucial evidence was
expected of the witness intended to be produced by the petitioner
and for which dates were given by the Labour Court several times
to the Management.
In absence of showing any crucial issue on which the
intended witness was expected to depose, the argument becomes
merely technical in nature. From the record, I find that
opportunities were given to the petitioner-Management to produce
their witness, which the petitioner failed to avail.
It has next been argued from the petitioner’s side that the
Labour Court has granted full back wages to the workman merely
upon a bald statement on his part that he was not gainfully
employed elsewhere after the termination of his service. Even in
the present writ petition, there is not even a whisper on the part of
the petitioner-Management naming any other place or
establishment where the workman was actually employed during
2.
this period. Therefore this submission is also without substance. If
some alternative establishment had been mentioned
in the pleadings of the writ petition, perhaps a counter affidavit
may have been called from the workman asking for specific
admission or denial but as the writ petition stands, this argument
also becomes merely technical in nature.
Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of the Sales
Promotion Employees (Conditions of service) Act, 1976 and a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.R. Adyanthaya &
Others Vrs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Another reported in
(1994) 5 SCC 737, it has been argued that in view of the
aforesaid Act, the Industrial Disputes Act would not apply.
The argument does not take into account that the decision
of the Supreme Court is in respect of a date prior to the 1987
amendment of the said 1976 Act.
In the circumstances, it is not a fit case which would call for
any interference with the impugned award of the Labour Court, in
exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under 226 of
the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
Sudhir/