- (1.) PETITIONER's case appears to have a chequered history. He was appointed as a Miner loader under the erstwhile Murlidih Colliery way back in the year 1967. In the same year he contracted Tuberculosis and remained under medical treatment at the C. H. D. , Dhanbad. After recovery from his illness, he obtained a certificate from C. H. D. , Dhanbad declaring him fit for duty. However, inspite of the fitness certificate issued by the doctor, the erstwhile management of the Murlidih colliery did not allow him to join duty. In the meantime, all the private mines including the Murlidih colliery was taken over by the new management of the b. C. C. L. under the Coal Mines Nationalization act, 1973. The petitioner approached the new management for allowing him to resume duty but the same was refused even by the new management. The petitioner pursued his claim by raising an industrial dispute. Initial attempt for conciliation by the Commissioner, having failed, the dispute was referred to the Labour tribunal. The petitioner succeeded at the labour Tribunal which, by its Award, had directed the respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages from January 1, 1976. 1. 2 Aggrieved by the Award, the management preferred a writ application before this Court. While admitting the writ petition, this Court had stayed the implementation of award but with a direction to the respondent management to pay the petitioner's wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute act till final disposal of the writ petition. Pursuant to the order, the Management paid the petitioner his wages till he attained the age of superannuation. The writ petition came to be ultimately disposed of on May 15, 1998 by confirmation of the Award passed by the tribunal. 1. 3 The Management with intent to pursue its protest against the claim of the petitioner, filed appeal against the judgment of the single judge passed in the petitioner's writ application. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Management was dismissed by the Division bench of this Court and against the order of dismissal, the Management had moved the supreme Court. The Management had lost even at the stage of Supreme Court which dismissed the civil appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 5797/1998 vide its order dated March 27,2001. After the Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Management, the petitioner by his representation dated July 25, 2001 (Annexure-3) while inviting attention of the chairman-cum- Managing Director of the respondent B. C. C. L. to the Award and the final judgment passed in the writ application by this court and the finality which the judgment had attained at the level of the Supreme Court, had demanded implementation of the Award in terms thereof in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court passed in the writ application. When the respondent management failed to respond, the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court vide M. J. C No. 236/2000 (R ). The contempt petition was disposed of on the undertaking of the Management that the petitioner's claim would be settled shortly. 1. 4 In response to the petitioner's representation, the matter was referred for settlement under the provisions of Section 58 of the Industrial Disputes (C) Rules. In the proceeding which was held on September 8, 2001 for settlement, the employer was represented by the officers nominated by it while the petitioner had appeared in person and was also represented by the General Secretary of the B. C. M. S. , Murlidih colliery. A settlement was arrived at between the Management and the petitioner on the following terms and conditions :- (i) That Shri Bindeshwari Das, ex Minor loader of Murlidih colliery will be paid 66% of the total full back wages from W. J. Area. (ii) That the amount already paid under section 17-B of the I. D. Act, 1947 will be deducted from the payable amount. (iii) That the union/workman will not claim or raise any dispute with regard to payment of back wages as per settlement. (iv) That this resolves the dispute in toto. (v) That both the parties will submit implementation report to R. L. C. (C)/a. L. C. (C), dhanbad within 30 days. 1. 5 Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner received a cheque dated September 4, 2001 for the amount of Rs. 2,98,552. 01. However, the petitioner was not satisfied since according to him, the payable amount was not assessed correctly and many items were not included in terms of settlement such as attendance bonus and gratuity for the period of service from 1967 to 1998, resulting in less payment to him. With a request to the management to make recalculation of the entire bill, the petitioner filed his representation before the General Manager of the respondent management on September 28, 2001. 1. 6 When his demand was not met, the petitioner again filed a contempt petition vide contempt (C) No. 864/2001. However, considering the fact that in compliance with the earlier order of this Court, the respondent management had made payment of the settled back wages to the petitioner, the contempt petition was dropped by order dated July 15, 2002. 1. 7 Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed the present writ application on December 13, 2004 for issuance of a direction upon the respondents for prompt payment of all legal dues including gratuity, arrears of salary, provident fund amount, L. T. C. , Mini L. T. C. advance/bonus, Sick Leave encashment, quarter Allowance etc. 1. 8 By order dated May 2,2006, this Court had referred the petitioner's dispute for settlement before the Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on May 7, 2006. However, by mutual consent of the counsel for the petitioner and the management, the matter was withdrawn from the Lok Adalat on the ground that for full and final settlement of the petitioner's claim, the matter needs to be verified and certain initial paraphernalia has to be observed before the c. M. P. F. Commissioner, Dhanbad subject to the petitioner's eligibility and for which the petitioner has to submit duly filled up forms before the C. M. P. F. Commissioner, the prescribed form for which having been supplied to the petitioner by the respondent management.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Management in which the petitioner's claim has been denied and disputed.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent management.;