GANESH RAM DIGGI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH CMD-CUM-CHAIRMAN, CCL, RANCHI
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-9-65
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 16,2009

Ganesh Ram Diggi Appellant
VERSUS
Central Coalfields Limited Through Cmd -cum -chairman, Ccl, Ranchi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to give him the benefits accrued to him as an employee under the respondent CCL in terms of Clause -9.2.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) (Annexure -6).
(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that under the terms of the aforesaid clause of the NCWA, the respondent employer is bound to pay the wages for the period during which the employee had remained under medical treatment consequent upon suffering accidental injury in course of his employment. Learned counsel adds that the fact that the petitioner had suffered the accidental injury, which had rendered him incapable of performing duty, while in course of his employment has been confirmed by the Labour Commissioner before whom the petitioner had filed an application for a direction to the respondent employer to pay compensation. The order of the Commissioner has not been challenged and on the contrary, the respondents, acknowledging the fact, have paid the amount of compensation to the petitioner. It is submitted further that the respondent employer cannot refuse to abide by the terms and condition as laid down in the NCWA merely on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application before the Commissioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a direction to the employer to pay the amount of arrears of wages, has been dismissed and a corresponding advise has been given to the petitioner to move the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that the order of the Commissioner, in itself, is perverse in view of the fact that the Commissioner appears to have totally ignored the terms of the NCWA.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that since the petitioner had earlier moved before the Labour Commissioner for an appropriate order under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders passed by the Commissioner to move before the Labour Court for an appropriate orders for his claim for arrears of wages.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.