NIFIKIR PAL Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 23.06.2010 contained in Ref. ECL/GM/MA/10/1781 dated 24.06.2010, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as a driller at Gopinathpur Colliery, a unit of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited. On an allegation that the petitioner and other two workmen namely, Notan Kumar Baishya and Makhu Singh assaulted one Mukul Roy, Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in his chamber on 28.02.1992. While the petitioner stood outside, Notan Kumar Baishya and Makhu Singh made murderous assault on him with sticks and daggers. In terms of the certified standing orders, an order of dismissal from service was passed on 03.03.1992 which was challenged by the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court. The order of summary dismissal was quashed vide order dated 05.02.1993. Aggrieved, the respondentM/s Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) filed F.M.A.T. No. 669 of 1993 which was partly allowed vide order dated 10.07.1995 whereby, interference with summary dismissal order was though upheld, a liberty was given to the appellantM/s ECL to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner and other two employees. Consequently, reference was made for adjudication and vide award dated 01.09.2003, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the concerned workmen with full back wages and continuity of service from the date of order of dismissal. Award dated 01.09.2003 was challenged by the respondentM/s ECL in W.P.(L) No. 1858 of 2004 which failed after dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 09.02.2010. However, the Writ Court permitted the management to consider grant of all consequential benefits of reinstatement to the workman and to pass reasoned and speaking order. The management of M/s ECL has passed order dated 23.06.2010 contained in Ref. ECL/GM/MA/10/1781 dated 24.06.2010 whereby, the benefit of back wages and consequential benefits have been denied to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 contained in Ref. ECL/GM/MA/10/1781 dated 24.06.2010 submits that the respondentM/s ECL has acted in a manner unknown to law. After the award dated 01.09.2003 was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(L) No. 1858 of 2004, it was not open to the respondentM/s ECL to deny the benefit of back wages and other consequential benefits to the concerned employee. It is submitted that merely because a direction was issued to the management of M/s ECL to consider grant of benefits of back wages and other consequential benefits, it would not clothe the authority with arbitrary power to act in a manner contrary to the established principles of law. It is submitted that after the order of reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits was passed vide award dated 01.09.2003, the respondentM/s ECL illegally did not permit the petitionerworkman to discharge his duty and therefore, on the plea of "no work no pay" the benefit of full back wages and other consequential benefits cannot be denied to the petitionerworkman.