2026:JHHC:14468 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 2549 of 2006 The Management of M/s Tin Plate Company of India Limited, Tin Plate P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, through Sri B.C. Kumar, son of Sri Ramyash Kumar, resident of 7, Golmuri Road, P.O. & P.S.- Golmuri, Jamshedpur, Dist – East Singhbhum … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Ismail, son of not known to petitioner, resident of 32, Rani Kudar, P.O. & P.S. Kadma Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum … … Respondents With W.P.(L) No. 5269 of 2005 Md. Ismail son of Late M.A. Aziz, resident of Sunehari Manzil, Road No. 17, Zakir Nagar, Old Purulia Road, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East. … … Petitioner Versus M/s Tinplate Co. of India Ltd., through its Managing Director, Golmuri Works, P.O. and P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum … … Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : None --- 18/12.05.2026 Nobody appears on behalf of the parties. 2. W.P.(L) No. 2549 of 2006 has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 29.03.2005 in reference case no. 25/94 whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshepdur held the workman to be entitled to arrears upto age of superannuation if already reached age of superannuation even after holding that the charge of theft has been proved against workman and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. W.P.(L) No. 5269 of 2005 has been filed for the following reliefs: 2026:JHHC:14468 2 “For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari from this Hon’ble Court for quashing that part of the Award dated 29.03.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 25/94 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has not been reinstated in service on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of theft of the company’s properties in spite of the fact that for the same set occurrence the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case.” 4. These writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date or order:12.05.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.05.2026