Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 350 (JHR)

Abdul Mannan v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2001-05-31

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on respondents not to act in any manner whatsoever against their Tripartite Settlement arrived at between authorities of respondent No. 1 in one hand and the authorities of the Union of the petitioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dhanbad on the other hand wherein the settlement has been arrived at, that the date of birth of the petitioner henceforth shall read as 1st July, 1942, as decided in Tripartite Settlement dated 2.2.1998 vide Annexure- 1. 2. According to the counsel for B.C.C.L. a notice of termination of settlement was issued by the Chief General Manager, Kustore Area on 18th January, 2000 whereby it was pointed out to the General Secretary, Kiolya Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat. Jharia, that the Management Representative wrongly agreed to correct the date of birth of the aforesaid workman Abdul Mannan in contravention of provision of Clause 37 of Certified Standing Order circulated by JBCCI circular No. I.I. 76 in arbitrary manner on the wrong assumption that the age 32 years recorded in Form B Register was in the year 1974 and not on 15th October, 1968, when the workman was appointed. 3. Further, according to the Counsel for the respondents no opposition having been made by the Union or workman in pursuance of the notice dated 18th January. 2000, the settlement stood terminated on completion of 60 days in terms with Section 19(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Reliance was also placed on Bombay High Court decision in Maruti Mahipati Mul-lick and Anr. v. Poison Ltd. and Anr., reported in 1970 LIC 308. 5. From the pleading made by the parties and settlement reached on 2nd February, 1998, it will be evident that the Union of Workman raised dispute whereinafter a conciliation proceeding was started under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act. In pursuance of such proceeding the management in one hand and the Labour Union and Assistant Labour Commissioner on the other hand arrived at a settlement on 2nd February, 1998. The relevant facts were brought on record that the workman abdul Mannan started his employment on 14th October, 1968, and his date of birth is recorded as 32 (thirty two) years as on 1974 at Sl. No. 523 of Form B Register at page 132 of Era Colliery. The relevant facts were brought on record that the workman abdul Mannan started his employment on 14th October, 1968, and his date of birth is recorded as 32 (thirty two) years as on 1974 at Sl. No. 523 of Form B Register at page 132 of Era Colliery. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact it was agreed upon not to effect superannuation of the workman w.e.f. 1.2.1998 and as per statutory Form B the age being 32 years as in 1974 it was agreed upon to read the date of birth as 1st July, 1942. 6. Under Section 19(2) of Industrial Dispute Act a settlement is binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if no such period is agreed upon for a period of six months from the date on which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute, and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid, until, the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by the one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement. In accordance with the aforesaid provision even if the submission of the Counsel for the respondent is accepted that the settlement arrived at on 2nd February, 1998 (vide Annexure-1) ceased to be operative since 18th of March, 2000 (on expiry of 60 days notice period and in absence of any objection), the age as recorded in the Form B being 32 years in 1974, the date of birth in terms with such age to be construed as 1.7.1942 and such date of birth cannot be held to be inoperative on expiry of 60 days period. 7. In the aforesaid background the age of workman Abdul Mannan having recorded as 32 years as in 1974 in Form B, such fact having accepted by parties while settlement was arrived, the petitioner workman is entitled to continue in the services up to the age of 60 years i.e. upto 30th June, 2002. 7. In the aforesaid background the age of workman Abdul Mannan having recorded as 32 years as in 1974 in Form B, such fact having accepted by parties while settlement was arrived, the petitioner workman is entitled to continue in the services up to the age of 60 years i.e. upto 30th June, 2002. The respondents are accordingly directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and pay the salary/wages including the wages for the period he was forced not to work, on an early date, but not later than the period of two months from the date of receipt or production of the copy of this order. 8. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. 9. Petition allowed.