Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1130 (JHR)

Ram Chandra Prasad v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2009-08-17

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Judgment Heard Shri Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent BCCL. 2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing the judgment / findings contained in the order dated. 4.4.2005, passed by the Controlling Authority, namely, the respondent no. 2 in P.G. Case No. 36/(47)/2003-E-3 and also for quashing the judgment / findings contained in the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority namely, the respondent no. 3 in P.G. Appeal No. 29 of 2005 and P.G. Appeal No. 21 of 2005. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioner the amount of gratuity by adding the period of his past service rendered under the Coal Mines Labour Organisation (C.M.L.W.O), prior to his joining the services under the respondent BCCL. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he had joined the service of the respondent BCCL on 1.10.1986. Prior to his joining service under the BCCL, he was employed under the C.M.L.W.O. from 11.6.1965 till 30.9.1986. He retired from service under the respondent BCCL on 31st March.2003. The petitioner had claimed the total amount of gratuity payable to him to the extent of Rs. 2.20,428.15 paise plus interest thereon, on the ground that the total length of service which he had rendered under the C.M.L.W.O. should be added to the service rendered by him under the respondent BCCL. 4. When the demand was not conceded by the respondent BCCL, the petitioner preferred an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Controlling Authority. The respondent BCCL contested the prayer of the petitioner. Upon evidences being adduced before it, the Competent Authority by its impugned order (Annexure-1), declared that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity amount of Rs. 87,396/-only by computing the period of service which he had rendered under the BCCL. It was observed that on the basis of the petitioner’s own acknowledgement, for the period he had served under the C.M.L.W.O., the petitioner had already received the gratuity amount payable to him. The amount so ordered by the Competent Authority, was payable by the respondent BCCL together with interest on account of the delayed payment at the rate of 6% per annum. The amount so ordered by the Competent Authority, was payable by the respondent BCCL together with interest on account of the delayed payment at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner as also the respondent BCCL, being aggrieved by the impugned order of the Competent Authority, had preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Authority. 6. By its impugned order, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner as also that of the respondent BCCL, upholding the findings of the Competent Authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the case of a similarly situated another employee namely, S.C. Biswas, it was the same Competent Authority which had allowed addition of past service rendered by the employee concerned under the C.M.L.W.O., together with the period of service rendered under the BCCL. Learned counsel in this context invites attention to the judgment passed by the Competent Authority in Application No. 36/(16(/97.E.4 (Annexure-3) and submits that the Competent Authority has apparently discriminated and passed conflicting orders on the same nature of claims advanced by the concerned employees. 8. Shri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent BCCL, would vehemently deny and dispute the entire claim of the petitioner. While supporting the findings of the Competent Authority, as also that of the Appellate Authority, on the issue relating to the petitioner’s demand for addition of his past service rendered under the C.M.L.W.O., learned counsel submits that the petitioner had admittedly received the entire amount of gratuity which was payable to him for his past services under the C.M.L.W.O. Furthermore, at the time of joining the respondent BCCL, the petitioner had three distinct options. The first option was that the employee may opt for retaining in Government Service; the second option was that the employee may opt for absorption in the Company’s pay scales on the terms and conditions of the B.C.C.L. and third option was that the employee may opt for absorption in the company with retention of Government pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefits. On the petitioner’s opting for option no. 2, the pay scales and terms and conditions applicable to the employee serving in company, squarely apply to the petitioner. On the petitioner’s opting for option no. 2, the pay scales and terms and conditions applicable to the employee serving in company, squarely apply to the petitioner. One of the terms and conditions applied to the petitioner was that the gratuity will be paid only for the services rendered by him under the Company and the past services rendered under the C.M.L.W.O., would not be taken into account for the purpose of gratuity. Learned counsel argues that under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot make any further claim of gratuity for the past service rendered by him under the C.M.L.W.O. Learned counsel refers in this context to another judgment passed in an identical case relating to one of the co-employees who had also served under the C.M.L.W.O., and had demanded addition of his past services rendered under the C.M.L.W.O. together with the services rendered under the respondent BCCL, but the prayer was rejected by the same Competent Authority and the same treatment has been given to the petitioner also in the matter of his claim. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has already received the amount of gratuity for the period of services rendered by him under the C.M.L.W.O. Furthermore, admittedly, the petitioner had accepted the second option under which he had agreed to be guided by the terms and conditions of services under the BCCL on his absorption under the respondent Company. The terms and conditions, had categorically declared that for the purpose of computing the amount of gratuity, the petitioner’s services under the respondent Company alone, shall be considered and his past services under the C.M.L.W.O. would not be considered. 10. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot certainly gain any mileage or advantage on the ground that under identical circumstances, prayer of a similarly situated co-employee was allowed and his past services rendered under the C.M.L.W.O. was taken into account with the services rendered under the respondent BCCL. The facts of the other case referred to by the petitioner are disputed by the counsel for the respondent BCCL in this case. Be that as it may, if it is shown that the findings in a particular case have been recorded erroneously, it can not be demanded that the error should be allowed to be continued. 12. The facts of the other case referred to by the petitioner are disputed by the counsel for the respondent BCCL in this case. Be that as it may, if it is shown that the findings in a particular case have been recorded erroneously, it can not be demanded that the error should be allowed to be continued. 12. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any perversity or impropriety in the findings recorded either in the impugned order of the Controlling Authority or Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.