Ravish Tiwari v. Nmdc Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6402 of 2019

1. Ravish Tiwari S/o - Shri Ram Prakash Tiwari Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/164 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

2. Rajat Kumar Roy W/o- Shri R.K. Roy, Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - II/ds/586 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

3. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o -Late Shri Ram Ratan Yadav Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/515 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

4. Neeraj Kispotta S/o - Shri Yakub Kispotta Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/325 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

5. Ku. Deepika Korram D/o - Shri S.R. Korram Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/349 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

6. Manish Kumar Gupta S/o - Shri Gopal Krishna Gupta Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/538 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

7. Navdeep Indukar S/o - Shri S.R. Indukar Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/307 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

8. Ku. Monika Thakur D/o - Late Shri Keju Ram Thakur Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ncd/68 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

9. Vivek Kumar Markam S/o - Shri Radhe Shyam Markam, Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/365 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 10.Deepak Kumar Soni S/o - Mahesh Kumar Soni Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/566 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 11.Rakesh Kumar S/o - Shri Ramesh Kumar Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ds/346 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

12. Smt. Jagrita Samant W/o - Shri Ashish Samant Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Jr. Stenographer Gr. III, Address - Nisp Nagarnar, District - Baster Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

13. Birendra Kumar Sahu S/o - Shri Parmanand Sahu Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Jr. Assistant Gr. II, Address - Ii/ncds/37 Kirandul District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Nmdc Limited The National Mineral Development Corporation Limited, (A Government Of India Enterprise) Through Its Chairmen Cum Managing Director, Registered Office At - 10-3-311/a, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderbad - 560028, District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

2. General Manager, Nmdc Limited, Production Units - Bailadila Iron Ore Mines, Kirandul Complex, Post Office Kirandul, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 494556, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Vigilance Officer, Nmdc Limited, 10-3-311/a, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 560028, District : Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent/s :

Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26/08/2019

1. The claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition filed by a group of workers is for an appropriate direction to the respondents for releasing 23% of the minimum guaranteed Benefit to the petitioners.

2. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that dispute raised by the petitioner is more of an industrial dispute as the relief sought for by the petitioners is on the basis of a "Settlement" that has been entered into by respondent No. 1 with the Trade Union operating under the respondent No. 1 and the

settlement was entered and registered before Chief Labour Commissioner.

3. Perusal of the record would show that Labour Department has also already made a certain correspondences to the management Respondent No. 1 in this regard.

4. Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. And another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd Employee Union, (2005) 6 SCC 725 in paragraph 8 & 9 has held as under :- "8. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh (2004 (4) SCC 268), it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v.

Kamlekar Shantarum Wadke (1976 (1) SCC 496), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Muncipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr. (2002) (2) SCC 542) and in Scooters India and Ors. v. Vijai V. Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549). "9. Rajasthan SRTC v.

"A speedy, inexpensive and effective forum for resolution of disputes arising between workmen and their employers. The idea has been to ensure that the workmen do not get caught in the labyrinth of civil courts with their layers upon layers of

appeals and revisions and the elaborate procedural laws, which the workmen can ill afford. The procedure followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and re-make the contracts, settlement, wage structures and what not.

Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them".

5. A similar view has also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another V. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another, (2013) 5 SCC 470.

6. Given the fact that claim raised by the petitioners arising out of the settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is of the opinion that present writ petition as such would not be maintainable and petitioner would have to raise a claim before the

appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act for making a reference to the concerned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for redressal of the grievance that the petitioners have.

7. Reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the concerned authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, the present Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit