2025:JHHC:31155 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (L). No. 837 of 2006 ------- Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its registered office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 and carrying on business inter-alia at Dhanbad Depot, Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand through its Senior Manager (Employee Relations), Nikhil Chandra Sinha, s/o. Shri Sudhir Ranjan Sinha, residing at 512/6. Parnasree Park, P.S. Behala, Kolkata-700060. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand, DGMS Building, Dhanbad-826001. 2. Union of India through the Secretary of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, Sramasakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-1. 3. Laksman Rout, s/o. Achhaylal Rout 4. Sarswati Devi, w/o. late Shankar Pd. Sahu 5. (i) Md. Nasim, s/o. late Md. Samid, (ii) Md. Munna, s/o. late Md. Samid 6. Md. Samsuddin, s/o. late Md. Fidda Hussain 7. Abdul Azad, s/o. late Abdul Hamid 8. Md. Allauddin, s/o. Md. Yasin Ansari 9. Md. Quiyam Ansari, s/o. Md. Hashim Ansari 10. Md. Sabir Ansari, s/o. late Md. Razaque Ansari 11. Pawan Kr. Mahato, s/o. late Sheo Pujan Mahato All represented by Indian Oil Shramik Union having its office at Railway Cinema Road, Purana Bazar, Dhanbad. 12. Indian Oil Shramik Union Service through the Secretary having its office at Dhanbad Depot Branch, Railway Cinema Road, Purana Bazar, Dhanbad. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. M. Patra, Advocate ---- 31/ 08.10.2025 Initially, this writ application was filed for quashing the Award dated 21.10.2005 in Ref. Case No. 174 of 2000. 2. During pendency of this writ application, the Management and the Workman entered into compromise settlement. Thereafter, several orders were passed, one of such orders is order dated 08.07.2025, which shows the history of the settlement and for brevity, order dated 08.07.2025 is extracted herein below: 2025:JHHC:31155 2 “28/08.07.2025 The order dated 30.04.2025 reads as under: “After going through the Award and different documents available on record, it appears that a reference was made for regularization of Shree Lakshman Rout and 9 others. Even in the last portion of the Award, a reference was made in favour of the Union i.e., Lakshman Rout and 9 others for regularization. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the name of Ashok Bansfore was not included in the list of workmen as indicated in Annexure-2; as such, the said workmen will not be entitled. However, it is also apparent from the record that learned Presiding Officer has categorically held that regularization should be made in favour of Lakshman Rout and 9 others in paragraph-7 of its Award. 3. The bone of contention now remains only with respect to one employee, namely, Ashok Bansfore, who was working as Sweeper since long continuously and has put more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year, which is apparent from paragraph 2 of the Award. It is also worth mentioning that the name of Mr. Ashok Bansfore is also reflecting in the list, who has raised the industrial dispute. Further, in the concluding portion of the Award at paragraph-6, the learned Presiding Officer has held as under: “In the circumstances mentioned above, I find that the claim of Indian Oil Shramik Union, Eastern Region (Marketing Division) for regularisation of Lakshman Rout and 9 others with the I.O.C Depot, Dhanbad, is justified and they are entitled to be regularised as permanent employees.” 4. In the circumstances mentioned above, prima facie, it appears that the claim of Indian Oil Shramik Union, Eastern Region (Marketing Division) for regularisation of Lakshman Rout and 9 others with I.O.C Depot. Dhanbad, is justified and they are entitled to be regularized as permanent employees. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to seek instruction as to why Mr. Ashok Bansfore will not get the benefit of the Award, who is one of the workmen as per the Union. 5. It is also necessary to indicate that during pendency of this writ application since the respondent no. 6 has died; as such, as per the order passed in this case, the legal heirs of respondent no. 6 will get the benefit after their name will be substituted in the instant writ application. 6. List these cases on 25.06.2025.” 2025:JHHC:31155 3 2. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner reiterates the same argument that since the name of Ashok Bansfore was not in the Award; as such, he is not entitled. 3. In reply to the aforesaid submission of Petitioner- Company, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent contended that in the dispute referred by the Central Government, the name of Ashok Bansfore was very much there and his name was mentioned in the separate list attached with the Reference; as such, there is no justification for not paying the settlement amount to Mr. Ashok Bansfore, who is same and similar with other workmen, who has already been paid the settlement amount. 4. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the order dated 30.04.2025 is very clear wherein the claim of Indian Oil Shramik Union has been dealt in detail; as such, positive order may be passed, so that the settlement amount as per the Award may be extended to Ashok Bansfore as has been given to other workmen. She further submits that so far as legal heirs of Respondent no. 6 is concerned; she would be filing substitution application with regard to the same. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court on the earlier occasion has clarified that the claim of Indian Oil Shramik Union, Eastern Region (Marketing Division) for regularisation of Lakshman Rout and 9 others with I.O.C. Depot. Dhanbad, is justified and they were entitled to for settlement amount. The reasoning has already been indicated in the previous order; accordingly, the Petitioner-Company is directed to pay the settlement amount to Ashok Bansfore also, who was working as Sweeper and has put more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year, which is apparent from paragraph-2 of the Award. It goes without saying that the learned Presiding Officer in paragraph no. 6 has also categorically stated that the claim of Union for regularization of Lakshman Rout and 9 others was justified and they were entitled to be regularized as permanent employees, so there is no question for differentiating Mr. Ashok Bansfore with other worker to whom the settlement amount has already been paid which was approximately 5.50 Lakhs. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove, the Petitioner is directed to pay the settlement amount to Mr. Ashok Bansfore, which was paid to other similarly situated workers affected by the said reference. The said amount shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. So far as issue for payment to legal heirs of respondent no. 6, the same shall be done after filing of the substitution application before this Court. It goes without saying that learned Sr. Counsel is directed to give the Bank details of Ashok Bansfore to the Petitioner- Company, so that necessary amount of settlement shall be credited in his A/c. 8. List this case on 04.08.2025.” 2025:JHHC:31155 4 3. Since both the parties have fairly submitted before this Court that as per the settlement, the entire amount has been paid to the respective workmen except petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, who have died during the pendency of this writ application; the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by clarifying that none of the workmen will pursue the Award in any Court of Law and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is deemed to be non-effective in view of the settlement. 4. However, an observation is necessary with respect to original petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, who have died during the pendency of this writ application that their legal heirs would be at liberty to approach the concerned Officers of the Management for getting the settlement amount which accrued in terms of settlement in favour of the deceased workmen (petitioner Nos. 4 and 5). 5. As a result, this petition stand disposed of. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 8th October, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 14/10/ 2025