2026:JHHC:14502 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 6380 of 2010 Area Manager, Bhuli Town Administration of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bhuli Nagar, P.S. Bank More, District Dhanbad, PIN- 826001, through Dr. Harendra Kishore, Son of Sri Liladhar Sharma, resident of Kusum Vihar Colony, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus Sri Prem Harizan, Son of Late Charitra Paswan, resident of Village- Khutwar, P.O. Urbishunpur, P.S. Tekari, Alipur, district-Gaya, at present residing at Bich Balihari, New Qr. No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Putkee, district-Dhanbad. … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate --- 28/12th May 2026 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for quashing the findings dated 06.09.2010 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No.13/2009 (Annexure-8) whereby and whereunder the learned Labour Court has been pleased to allow the application filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to pay a sum of Rs.77367.68 although the identity of the Respondent is yet to be established pursuant to the-Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 4/7/2002 in L.P.A. No. 328/1998 (R) by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad and for non- compliance of the said order/judgment dated 4/7/2002, the Union namely Bihar Shramik Sangh has filed a Contempt case being Cont. (C) Case No.9/2004 which is still pending.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is chequered history with respect to regularization of number of workmen including on Sri Prem Harizan, who is the respondent in the present case. The learned counsel has submitted that an award, as contained in Annexure-1 to the 2026:JHHC:14502 2 writ petition, was passed in Reference Case No. 48/1982 and ultimately the matter was taken up in L.P.A. No. 328 of 1998 (R), wherein it has been observed that the litigation started in the year 1982 when the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 48/1982 passed award dated 17.09.1982, whereby the claim of the workmen was accepted and they were directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Thereafter, the workmen then moved the High Court for implementation of the award in C.W.J.C. 2046 of 1996 (R) and the learned writ Court allowed the writ petition directing the Management to implement the award by reinstating 20 concerned workmen. However, at the same time, a direction was made for proper identification of the workmen, who are entitled to be reinstated pursuant to the award dated 17.09.1982 and the modalities for the same was also mentioned therein. The relevant portion of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 328 of 1998 (R) is quoted as under: - “4. We also find that the only dispute with regard to proper identification of the concerned workmen. We, therefore, without interfering with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge further direct the management to approach the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad who shall provide every information and handover the photographs etc. to the management. The Management then shall get the advertisement published in the newspaper within two weeks from the date of receipt of the information from the Tribunal. After proper identification the concerned workmen shall approach the Management within two weeks from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper and the Management shall complete the process of identification and reinstate those workmen identified by the Management within 30 days from the date of appearance of the concerned workmen.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that the process of identification of the workmen was never completed and consequently, the concerned workman involved in the present case was not identified and accordingly, a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) regarding computation of his wages was itself not maintainable. The learned counsel 2026:JHHC:14502 3 has submitted that the learned court has recorded that the identity of the concerned workman was not in dispute. However, such finding is perverse. He submits that once the identity is not proved, there is no question of payment of any wages under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 6969/2017 decided on 19.06.2023 and has referred to paragraph 29 of the said judgment to submit that it has been held that once the amount payable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act is quantified, it is recoverable as certificate proceedings and the statutory interest in terms of the certificate proceedings is realizable and there was no scope for the learned court to award interest @ 10% as has been awarded in the present case. Paragraph 29 of the judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 6969 of 2017 is quoted as under: - “29. The award of interest by the learned labour court in the instant case is not arising out of any settlement or award and even as per the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, interest has been awarded only as a part of equitable relief. This court is of the considered view that the learned court below had no jurisdiction to award any interest in equity as it was bound to determine and quantify payable amount only in terms of the pre- existing right on the basis of any award or settlement. In absence of any such pre-existing right to claim any interest on ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs in terms of the aforesaid provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement and the circular, which is the basis of the claim, the award of interest by the learned court below on payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order directing payment of interest in exgratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs is set-aside. However, in case the computed amount is sought to be recovered through any certificate proceedings, the statutory interest, as applicable to the certificate proceedings will be payable in accordance with law.” 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is a clear finding that identity of the concerned workman was duly established and therefore there was a pre-existing award and the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was rightly entertained and the award 2026:JHHC:14502 4 was rightly passed. He submits that so far as the quantification is concerned, the same was also was not in dispute. He has further submitted that only 80% of the computed amount was directed to be paid and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the learned labour court, after referring to the materials on record, has given a clear finding with respect to identity of the respondent. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of the order passed in the award dated 17.09.1982 in reference case, the award was not capable of implementation as the identity of the concerned respondent was not established, is completely misplaced and hence rejected. No error in appreciation of materials has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The finding of the learned Labour court with respect to identity of the respondent is based on materials on record and hence is not perverse. 7. This Court further finds that the computation of wages payable under section 33-C (2) of the aforesaid Act, which was placed on record, was also not in dispute before the learned court and the Court had directed payment of only 80% interest of the computed dues considering the gainful engagement of the respondent during the relevant period. The order to pay 80% of the computed amount is based on sound reasons and does not call for any interference. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, so far as the identity of the workman and the awarded amount is concerned. 9. So far as the interest is concerned, the finding of the learned court calls for interference in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 6969/2017 dated 19.06.2023, whose relevant paragraph is already quoted above. It has been held that there is no scope for passing an order for payment of interest over and above what has been found due and the 2026:JHHC:14502 5 amount so quantified is recoverable through certificate proceedings and in case the amount is sought to be recovered through certificate proceedings, it would carry the statutory interest as applicable to certificate proceedings and will be payable in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, the impugned order does not call for interference except to the extent it relates to payment of interest @ 10% from 21.02.2009. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.05.2026 Uploaded On: 13.05.2026 Mukul/-