Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 570 (JHR)

Md. Mustafa v. Central Coal Field Limited

2020-06-05

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. The instant writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.06.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner’s service was terminated with effect from 09.06.2005 for remaining absent from his duty without proper information. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed in Argada colliery on 12.03.1979 on compassionate ground in place of his father Musa Mian who died in harness. The petitioner was given promotion in the year 1990 and 1994 and he was promoted as Trammer in category-III and his service was regularized on the said post. In the year 2003 a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner for remaining absent from duty without information from 19.02.2003. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet stating therein that he was admitted in Argada hospital on 19.02.2003. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was constituted and his service was finally terminated after following due procedure vide order dated 13.06.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has filed an appeal way back in 2005 which is Annexure-6 to the writ application, but the same has not yet been disposed of. He further contended that since the appeal is still pending, the respondents may be directed to dispose of the appeal forthwith. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has taken two preliminary objections in this case which is incorporated in their counter affidavit. The first objection is with regard to the maintainability of the instant application as the petitioner being a workman comes within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such, proper remedy on the subject will lie before the appropriate authority and the forum created under the said Act and as such, the writ application is not maintainable. The second objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the so-called appeal which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application is not an appeal rather it is simply a mercy representation and the instant writ application has been filed after 8 years of termination as such, the same should be dismissed on the ground of latches. In support of his contention on the ground of laches, he relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 relevant paragraphs are 16 and 17 which are as follows:- “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle.” In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-CCL through Video Conferencing. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was a workman and was working as ‘Trammer’ in category-III in the respondent colliery as such he will come within the definition of workman as enshrined in section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the proper remedy of his grievance would not lie under the writ jurisdiction rather before the appropriate forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 . 7. Even otherwise, it would not be out of place to mention here the petitioner has also not availed the alternative remedy as per the standing order of the coal company. As per clause 30 of the standing order, any workman can file an appeal within a period of 45 days. The contention of the petitioner that his appeal is still pending is misconceived as he has not filed any appeal as per clause 30 of the standing order. Further, the instant writ application has been filed after a lapse of 8 years from the date of termination and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu (Supra) a person should not get any relief on the ground of latches. Further, the instant writ application has been filed after a lapse of 8 years from the date of termination and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu (Supra) a person should not get any relief on the ground of latches. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has categorically held in Para-17: “............A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle.” In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions and the judicial pronouncements the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed. 9. Ordered accordingly.