BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. TAHAL SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9.1989 passed by respondent No. 2, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in M.J. Case No. 30 of 1987 (D) whereby and where under the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short), has been allowed and it was held that the applicant-respondent No. 1 is entitled to get payment of dues amounting to Rs. 95,664.64 from the petitioner.

(2.) The aforesaid M.J. Case No. 30 of 1987 (D) arose out of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 33 C(2)(a) of the Act claiming full back wages for the period 15.2.1982 to October, 1987. The case of the respondent No. 1, claimant was that he was originally appointed as permanent Miner/Loader in Bagdigi Colliery and he remained absent in his duty from February, 1974, due to mental imbalance and was under treatment at Ranchi. It is stated that a charge-sheet was issued on 24.11.1980 by the petitioner and after enquiry he was dismissed from service with effect from 15.2.1982. Subsequently, the petitioner-management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act in the Court of the Central Industrial Tribunal for approval of the said order of dismissal. The Tribunal rejected the application and refused to grant approval of dismissal of the applicant from service. The applicant thereafter approached and represented to the petitioner-management for allowing him to resume duty with full back wages. However, the applicant-respondent No. 1 was re-instated in his service by the petitioner-Management in November, 1987. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming full back wages and other benefits from 15.2.1982 till he was re-instated in service. The management opposed the said application stating, inter alia, that the Labour Court constituted by the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain such applications, before notification dated 23.3.1987 and it has no retrospective effect where cause of action arose long before 23.3.1987 and as such the claim of the applicant was barred by limitation and estoppel. It was further stated that the application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act seeking approval of dismissal order of the applicant was dismissed for default and it was not decided on merit, and, therefore, the applicant cannot take advantage of the said order of rejection.

(3.) The Labour Court framed various issues and after considering the evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that since the order of dismissal of the applicant from service was not approved by the Tribunal and the application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was rejected the applicant shall be deemed to be in service and he is entitled to get back wages.