MANU BIRUA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 30. 10. 2012 in M.J. Case No. 32 of 2007, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Security Guard on 15.05.1969. On 24.07.1997 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted by the Chief of the Security, who was the competent authority. Vide office order dated 20.08.1997 one Shri A.K. Sharma, Deputy Manager (P) was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry concluded on 28.01.1998 and the Chief of the Security agreed with the finding in the enquiry report that charges against the petitioner were found proved. An opportunity to file representation against the finding in the enquiry report was afforded to the petitioner and thereafter, in terms of Certified Standing Orders of the Company, the competent authority decided to discharge the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. 15.05.1998 and in compliance of Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, one month's wage was sent at the local address of the petitioner. The Management moved the Industrial Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 05 of 1998 seeking approval of the order of discharge which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2005 holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. A liberty was given to the management to lead evidence and thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.2006 Misc. Case No. 05 of 1998 was dismissed whereby, the order of discharge of the petitioner was not approved. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the amount due to him with interest at the rate of 12 % thereon. In the application under Sec. 33C(2), the petitioner averred that since the order of discharge from service was disapproved by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner would be deemed to continue in service till, he attained superannuation from service and therefore, he was entitled for payment of dues on account of basic wage, dearness allowances payment in terms of tripartite settlement dated 17.12.2001 and also benefits arising on account of wage enhancement and other benefits in terms of memorandum of settlement dated 17.12.2001. In paragraph no. 12 of the application dated 17.12.2007, the applicant/petitioner has given details of amount due.

(3.) The Management filed its show cause raising a plea that since the workman has retired from service, he was not entitled for benefit under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act. The petitioner was discharged w.e.f 15.05.1998 because he himself had submitted application dated 25.04.1998 stating that his date of birth may be considered as 01.07.1938 as recorded in ex Army Service Certificate. The Management accordingly, calculated amount due to him and the amount for 47 days between 15.05.1998 to 01.07.1998 as back wages has been calculated. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide order dated 30.10.2012 in M.J. Case No. 32 of 2007 held that the petitioner has failed to point out any miscalculation in the settlement dues made by the opposite party TISCO and therefore, it was held that the applicant was entitled to get the settlement amount as calculated by the Management.