IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No.710 of 2008
Smt. Kamoda Devi ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Steel Authority of India Limited through Assistant General Manager
(P & A), Garhwa
2. The Senior Manager (P & A), Garhwa
3. The Management of Bhawanathpur,
Lime Stone Mine Bhawanathpur, Garhwa ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Amar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
th
05/Dated: 20 July, 2011
1. Present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the
petitioner's services were terminated much earlier than the actual date of
superannuation, and therefore, the following reference was filed under
Section 10 for the adjudication by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad:
"Whether the action of the management of
Bhawanathpur Lime Stone Mines Bhawanathpur, Garhwa in
superannuating/retiring Smt. Kanoda Devi w.e.f. 27.10.99
considering her date of birth as 10.10.37 and not considering
the date of birth as 10.10.1945 as calimed by the workman is
justified if not to what relief the workmen is entitled."
2. The aforesaid reference was thus filed before the tribunal wherein
reference No.107 of 2001 and the award was passed by the tribunal dated
16th August, 2005 and the operative part of the award reads as under:
"In the result the following award is rendered;
That the action of the management of Bhawanathpur Lime
Stone Mine,Bhawanathpur Garhwa in superannuating/retiring
Smt. Kamoda Devi w.e.f. 27.10.99 considering her date of
birth as 10.10.37 and not considering the date of birth as
10.10.1945
was not justified. Age of the concerned female
worker named above should be reassessed by the management
through Apex Medical Board in strict compliance to Medical
jurisprudence and the decision of the said board should be
binding on both sides. Management is directed to arrange for
the said Medical Board within the three months from the date
of publication of this award in the Gazette of India.
Sd/
(B. Biswas)
Presiding Officer.”
3. Thus, instead of deciding the reference the petitioner was relegated
to Apex Medical Board. The Medical Board was constituted by the
respondents and the respondents have written a letter dated 23rd February,
2007, which is at Annexure4 to the memo of petition, that the medical
board has examined the petitioner and the age of the petitioner has been
found within the range of 53 to 63 years as on date of superannuation i.e.
27th October, 1999. The last paragraph of the said letter reads as under:
“Taking into account of range of age as per
findings/opinion of the Apex Medical Board, your age was
determined to have been in the range of 53 to 63 years on the
date of your superannuation (i.e. on 27.10.1999).
Accordingly, the date of retirement from the services of the
Company on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e.
27.10.2006 which has already been accepted and further
confirmed by the findings of the said Apex Medical Board.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
Sd/
(P.C. Tiwari)
Asstt/ General Manager (P&A)”
4. Thus, petitioner’s date of superannuation was finalised by the
respondents as 27th October, 2006. In fact, the petitioner was wrongly
superannuated on 27th October, 1999. It is further submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the respondents issued a letter
dated 4th August, 2007 (Annexure5) that in earlier letter dated 23rd
February, 2007 there is some error, therefore, corrigendum was issued in a
partial modification and instead of 27th October, 2006 the date of
superannuation will now read as 27th October, 1999. Thus, it is submitted
by the counsel for the petitioner that the date of superannuation even after
medical examination is refixed as the same i.e. 27th October, 1999 and the
Industrial Tribunal has also not finally decided the reference and therefore,
the matter be remanded for its final decision upon the terms of the
reference and also keeping in view the further development about the
medical examination of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner
was examined by the Apex Medical Board constituted by the respondents,
as directed by the Central Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad and upon
examination of petitioner, it is true that initially a letter was written by the
respondent dated 23rd February, 2007 wherein a new date of
superannuation was finalised as 27th October, 2006 which was found to be
erroneous and therefore, again a letter was written dated 4th August, 2007
(Annexure5) and a corrigendum was issued to the effect that instead of
27th October, 2006 a new date 27th October, 1999 will be read and
moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there was
no clear cut decision upon the terms of the reference by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. The duty of the tribunal
was to decide in the reference which has been shifted upon the Medical
Board by the Tribunal and therefore, let the matter be remanded so that
the terms of the reference may be finally decided by the tribunal on the
basis of the further development also.
6. In view of this limited submission and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the terms of reference ought to
have been decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2,
Dhanbad. The duty of the tribunal can never be shifted to the Apex Medical
Board as directed by the tribunal in the last paragraph of the award passed
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, as stated hereinabove.
Medical Board has already examined the petitioner which has been brought
on record at Annexure4 and 5.
7. I, hereby, restore the Reference No.107 of 2001 to its original file and
remand the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2,
Dhanbad to the decide reference No.107 of 2001. The tribunal will also
decide the terms of reference in the light of the medical examination of the
petitioner and on the basis of Annexure4 to the memo of this petition. All
these documents shall be presented by the management before the tribunal.
The report given by the Apex Medical Board is not record of this writ
petition, hence, it will also be called upon from the management and it will
be taken on record and the tribunal will decide the terms of reference on
the basis of this further development i.e. medical examination. The tribunal
will also keep in mind all the observations which are already made in the
order dated 16.08.2005. The Reference will be deemed to be continue so
that evidence, already taken on record can also be considered in light of
further development.
8. I, hereby, direct the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2,
Dhanbad to decide reference No.107 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible,
practicably and preferably within the period of 16 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for both sides assured this
Court that they will not ask for unnecessary adjournment and shall
cooperate the hearing of the reference.
9. This writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
NKC