Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 39 (JHR)

Ravindra Prasad v. Bokaro Steel Plant

2004-01-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as Fitter-cum-Waterman in Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. The charge-sheet was served on him for misconduct of theft, by the Chief Personnel Manager on 23.9.1983 and an enquiry was initiated against him and thereafter he was terminated from his service. Then on a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 1995 was registered by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. In the complaint, the petitioner has made a prayer for an award for his reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City by his award dated 29.2.1998, found that the misconduct has been proved, but, however, considering the fact that the order of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to such a petty nature of misconduct, held that the petitioner be reinstated in service without back wages on the same post and pay, he last held and drew with continuity of service. 2. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent by filing CWJC No. 2205 of 1998 (R), before this Court which was dismissed by a judgment dated the 8th of February, 1994 contained in Annexure 4 to the present writ application. 3. After the dismissal of the writ application, the respondents issued an office order dated 28.1.1995 contained in Annexure 2 to this writ application, whereby the petitioner was promoted notionally to the post of Fitter-cum- Waterman in the scale of Rs. 610-904/- with effect from 15.7.1988 and to Tech. (Fitter-cum- Waterman) in the scale of Rs. 1500-2151/- of cluster B with effect from 31.12.1992 with a condition that the enhanced salary on account of promotion will be paid from the date of assumption of charge of grade/post to which the petitioner was promoted and no arrears of pay on account of annual increment/notional promotion/wage revision/ stepping up would be aid prior to 5.4.1994. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by those operative part of the order as contained in Annexure-2, whereby he has been deprived of the monetary benefits of enhanced salary on account of promotion given to him by Annexure 2 to the writ application by the respondents. 5. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by those operative part of the order as contained in Annexure-2, whereby he has been deprived of the monetary benefits of enhanced salary on account of promotion given to him by Annexure 2 to the writ application by the respondents. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition put in Annexure 2 regarding non-payment of arrears of pay on account of annual increment, notional promotion, wage revision prior to 5.4.1994 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction because the respondents are bound to act in accordance with the award of the Labour Court was upheld by the High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that initially the implementation of the award was stayed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application i.e. CWJC No. 2205 of 1998 (R) filed by the respondents but thereafter by order dated 21.12.1989, the order of stay was modified and it was directed that the respondent-Company shall be liable to pay during the pendency of the writ application, the full wages at the rate last drawn by him including the maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule from July, 1998, which was in fact paid to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the order dated 21.12.1999 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application which was an order passed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner is entitled to all the monetary benefits on the basis of the order of promotion, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, after the writ application filed by the respondents was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 8.2.1994. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, reported in 1999 (2) SCC 106 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 720, has submitted that reinstatement in service without back wages was actually re-employment and in fact it was not reinstatement. 9. Rajiv Ranjan learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 720, has submitted that reinstatement in service without back wages was actually re-employment and in fact it was not reinstatement. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no doubt as held that in the case of Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, reported in 1999 (2) SCC 106 , where there is simpliciter reinstatement then a workman would be entitled to all the consequential benefits but where there is a specific direction for reinstatement without back wages, then it amounts to re-employment to the workman without any consequential benefits and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this application. 10. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation, (supra), accordingly I hold that though the petitioner was reinstated in service but without back wages and, therefore, it would mean in true sense, that he was given re-employment and, therefore, I find that the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits as per the order as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application is not entertainable. 11. The decision of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the point of issue before the Supreme Court was quite different to that of the point of issue in the present case. 12. In the result, I find no merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.