Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan set aside the Labour Court, Deoghar awards that had rejected claims by casual workmen engaged with the State’s Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, after their services were allegedly ended through oral orders following demands for regularisation and resistance to being shifted to contract work. The Court found that a separate, formal application to the Conciliation Officer under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not mandatory where the workmen had already marked copies of their representations and grievance letters to the Conciliation Officer, thereby bringing the dispute to the labour authorities’ notice. The disputes were remanded for fresh consideration by the Labour Court, with liberty to the employer to seek leave to file pleadings and lead evidence, and a direction for an expeditious decision.

The petitioners were engaged as casual workmen by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, performing duties such as nalkup-khalasi, hand pumpman, khalasi, handpump mechanic and jhadukash. They claimed to have worked for varying periods between 1980 and 2017, completing more than 240 days of work each year. According to them, after submitting representations seeking regularization of their services, their employment was terminated orally and they were informed that reinstatement would be possible only on contract basis.

Also Read: Photocopied Power Of Attorney No Evidence Unless Section 65 Conditions For Secondary Evidence Met: Supreme Court

The petitioners raised industrial disputes by letters addressed to the Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer, with copies to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Deoghar. As no conciliation proceedings were initiated, they approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the respondents did not file written statements or contest the claims. The petitioners led evidence and their witnesses were not cross-examined. However, the Labour Court dismissed the cases on the ground that there was no documentary proof of raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer and that absence of appointment letters rendered the claims not credible.

The Court recorded that when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it “will neither act as a court of first instance; nor consider the respondents’ defenses, since they failed to file written statement despite ample opportunity in the Labour Court.”

On the central issue, the Court stated that “The fundamental question in these writ petitions is whether a deemed reference under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 existed, and whether the claims should have been adjudicated on their merits.”

Referring to the materials on record, the Court observed that “The petitioners' however, had sent copies of the letters addressed to their employer stating the dispute and demanding redressal of their grievances. This is sufficient compliance with the requirement of making application in Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”

The Court further observed, “The Labour Court should not have applied strict and literal interpretation and was required to only ensure that there is substantive compliance with the statutory provisions.”

It held that the finding of the Labour Court was erroneous, stating, “The finding that no application was made to the Conciliation Officer contradicts the evidence and is patently perverse.”

The Court also recorded that “the Labour Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach which is incorrect.” It further noted that once the labour authorities became aware of the dispute, it was their duty to initiate conciliation proceedings, and that the workmen had waited for forty-five days as required.

Addressing the procedural inconsistency, the Court stated, “It is inconceivable as to how the Labour Court could first hold that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and then examine the entire evidence and records.” It concluded that “the findings in the awards are illegal and unsustainable and liable to be set aside.”

Also Read: Not Every Discrepant Campaign Statement Amounts To Corrupt Practice: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Election Petition, Upholds Sindri MLA’s Election In 2024 Polls

The Court directed that “the cases before the Labour Court require fresh examination. An order of remand would be best serve the ends of justice. The respondents may avail themselves of the opportunity before the Labour Court to file appropriate applications for permission to submit their written statements and/or adduce evidence etc., which shall be considered by the Labour Court strictly in accordance with law. The Labour Court should also decide the case expeditiously.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV; Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Roy & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2844

Case Number: W.P.(L) No. 2852 of 2019 with W.P.(L) No. 3783 of 2019

Bench: Justice Deepak Roshan