Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 854 (JHR)

Hindustan Lever Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-04

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2008
Judgment This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (L) No.7256/2006 by which the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the management of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, holding therein that the reference regarding revision of pay-scale be allowed to continue before the labour court. 2. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the appellant-management, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, that the respondents have already availed V.R.S and they have all retired after which they have also been paid their wages. 3. However, the counsel for the respondent-workmen submitted that the labour court has already passed an award in favour of the respondent-workmen on 30.7.2002 holding therein that the V.R.S was an eye-wash and their removal from service ought to be treated as termination without resorting to the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The counsel for the appellant thereafter explained the position and submitted that although the labour court passed an award in favour of the respondent-workmen, holding therein that the V.R.S availed by them was an eyewash, the fact remains that the said award is under challenge at the instance of the appellant-management in W.P (L) No.6663/2002, which has been admitted and the execution of the award has been stayed. 5. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, we find force in the submission that the question regarding the removal of the respondent-workmen from service, which, according to the appellant, is on account of the V.R.S availed by them, is finally decided by the learned Single Judge and the question of adjudication of the reference for revision of the pay-scale, which is the subject-matter of the reference, against which the writ petition of the appellant has been rejected, out of which this appeal arises, cannot be allowed to proceed. 6. The counsel for the respondent-workmen has endeavoured hard to impress upon this Court that the reference regarding revision of pay-scale be allowed to continue as the award against the V.R.S has already been passed in their favour by the labour court referred to hereinabove. 7. 6. The counsel for the respondent-workmen has endeavoured hard to impress upon this Court that the reference regarding revision of pay-scale be allowed to continue as the award against the V.R.S has already been passed in their favour by the labour court referred to hereinabove. 7. The counsel for the respondent-workmen is missing the point that the question of revision of pay-scale can only be considered when the respondent-workmen are held to be in service and when the question of continuance of their services is itself sub-judice in the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge and the award passed in their favour setting aside the V.R.S has been stayed by the learned Single Judge, it is difficult to hold that the question regarding revision of pay-scale and the claim of the respondent-workmen made in the second reference, be allowed to continued. 8. However, we see no difficulty in permitting the respondent-workmen to press for the consequential benefits of the second reference claiming revision of the pay-scale, provided they succeed before the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the labour court is finally upheld by the learned Single Judge. As long as the dispute regarding V.R.S is not finally decided by the learned Single Judge, the question of continuance of the second reference regarding revision of pay-scale cannot be permitted to continue. 9. We, therefore, allow this appeal with liberty to the respondent-workmen to get the reference dated 30.9.1995 continued, if the previous award regarding V.R.S, which has gone in favour of the respondent-workmen, is confirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (L) No.6663/2002. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the appellant-management, subject to the liberty granted to the respondent-workmen. The counsel for the respondent-workmen is, therefore, correct only upto the extent that the reference dated 30.9.1995 shall remain in abeyance in the circumstance referred to hereinbefore.