SINGHBHUM THIKEDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner as well as State.

(2.) THE petitioner has come before this court to quash the order dated 16th November 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 16/07 whereby the petitioner's application to modify the order dated 01st March 2012 earlier passed in the said reference case, has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued upon M/s Tata Motors Ltd for payment of wages to the concerned workmen since October 2011 and further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to ensure payment of wages to the concerned workmen of Reference Case No. 16/07. Little background to the controversy of the case is necessary to appreciate the merits of the case. A reference was made on 05th November 2007 vide Reference Case No. 16/07 before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Under the said reference, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur has been asked to answer whether 68 workmen as enclosed in the list, are entitled to be regularized in the services of M/s Tata Motors Ltd? If not, what relief they are entitled to? These workmen had earlier made an application before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur for directing the respondents therein to pay wages to the concerned workmen as they had stopped paying wages to them. In such circumstances, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 16/07 had passed the order, operative part of the order is as follows:

(3.) PERUSAL of the instant order would show that this Court on that occasion found that the very question, whether M/s Tata Motors Ltd is a principal employer and, whether there is any relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workmen and M/s Tata Motors Ltd, are yet to be decided in the reference case, as mentioned in the impugned order. It also observed that in view of the clear term, the order cannot be read to mean that in absence of M/s Kay Pee & Company, payment has to be made by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. In such circumstance, this Court found that there was no cause for the Management of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. to raise any grievance against the said order and in that light, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner however once again made an application before the learned Labour Court to modify the said order dated 01st March 2012 passed by it earlier by directing M/s Tata Motors Ltd itself to make payment of the wages to the concerned workmen from October 2011.