IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 4067 of 2005
The Tinplate Company of India Limited, Jamshedpur ............... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. S.K.Roy ......... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate & Mr. D.K.Karmakar, Advocate
05/30.9.2010
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for
respondent-S.K.Roy.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Labour
Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case no. 3 of 1990 has wrongly came to a finding that
charges were not proved and order of dismissal of workmen is bad in law and
directed for reinstatement of the workman. He has further argued that no
pleading on behalf of the workman has been placed to show that he was not
gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal to the date of the award and
as such the direction of full back wages was wrongly passed. He has relied upon
the judgment of this court reported in 2010(2) JCR page 516 in the case of
management of SAIL relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and as such the order passed for full payment is bad in law and fit to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- workman has
submitted that it will appear that although charges were made against the
workman that he allowed the lifting of TISCO material , but the Labour Court after
considering the management witnesses as also the document Ext.W came to a
finding of fact that management has failed to prove that any misconduct was
committed by any of the workmen rather the Labour Court found that Ext.W
shows that the workman who was charged of misconduct only obeyed the
direction of the superior officer present there who stated that material has been
checked by the TISCO officers and on their direction he allowed the material to
go out of the company and thus, finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ
jurisdiction of the court. More so, there are other findings based on the
evidences of the parties.
After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on
record, I also find that the finding of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Jamshedpur is based on the evidence of both the parties and especially the
management and Ext.W and on the basis of the evidence and documents, the
Labour Court has come to a finding that the management has failed to prove that
any misconduct was committed by the workman and rightly directed for
reinstatement. I find no illegality, so far as reinstatement is concerned.
-2-
Further, there was no pleading placed on behalf of the respondent-
workman that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else during the period
from his termination till the date of award. In that view of the matter, relying on the
judgment of this court reported in 2010(2) J.C.R. Page 508 in the case of
Bhubneshwar Mallik on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of J.K.Synthetic Limited reported in 2007(2) SCC 433, the direction of
payment of full back wages is not justified. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed
to pay 25% of the wages to the respondent- workman within a period of one
month from today.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the application is
disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
A. Mohanty/