2026:JHHC:19034-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 257 of 2026 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through General Manager, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi ….. Appellant Versus 1. Krishna Sahu 2. Md. Hussain 3. Kulendan Kumar 4. Md. Akram Ansari 5. Samir Ansari @ Sabbir Ansari 6. John Minj 7. Bablu Tirkey 8. Md. Jakir 9. Sanjay Toppo 10. Sanicharwa Oraon 11. Robin Lakra 12. Kamlesh Kumar 13. Dina Nath Singh 14. Manoj Kumar Sinha 15. Irfan Ali 16. Asit Tirkey 17. Md. Mohsin Khan 18. Jitu Kachhap 19. Ram Babu Prasad 20. Sudharjeet Kachhap 21. Anil Paswan 22. Mani Sahu 23. Krishna Kumar 24. Baha Kachhap Chuta 25. Kamta Prasad 26. Dinesh Prasad Yadav 27. Kapil Prasad 28. Raj Kishore Prasad 29. Saryu Prasad 30. Ramchandra Singh 31. Md. Noor Hassan Ansari 32. Dular Chand Prasad 33. Md. Mahmood Alam 34. Sanjay Kumar Sharma 35. Ajay Kumar Singh 36. Md. Mujibul Rahman 37. Jiwan Oraon 38. Dinesh Khalko 39. Ujjwal Toppo 40. Lalu Mahto 41. Jorge Ekka 42. Rambrit Gope 43. Ram Bilash Singh 44. Md. Arshad 45. Mustak Ansari 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 2 46. Ram Pravesh Singh 47. Ramayan Prasad Singh 48. Dhani Sahu 49. Subhash Chandra Bose 50. Sanjay Kumar 51. Bipin Kumar 52. Umesh Prasad 53. Suresh Lakra 54. Shiv Nandan Kumar 55. Lakhan Prasad Yadav 56. Sakur Ansari 57. Subodh Singh 58. Jadunandan Bhagat 59. Kamaluddin Ansari 60. Birsa Ekka 61. Kushal Ekka 62. Anil Paswan @ Anil Kumar Paswan 63. Lalku Tigga 64. Ainul Ansari 65. Josheph Minj 66. Navin Kumar Pandey 67. Binda Prasad 68. Md. Rahimuddin 69. Prabhu Mahto 70. Jakir Hussain 71. Yusuf Ansari 72. Shivajee Prasad 73. Parmanand Sharma 74. Raj Bahadur Singh 75. Sukhram Toppo 76. Karam Singh Tirkey 77. Mustak Ahmad 78. Md. Khalilullah 79. Palus Ekka 80. Lokiya Khalko 81. Kalim Ansari 82. Md. Aslam Ansari 83. Md. Rijwan Ahmad 84. Chhotu Pall 85. Krishna Mahto 86. Shashi Kant Mehta ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: - ----- 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 3 02/30.06.2026 I.A. No. 4806 of 2026: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There is a delay of one day in filing the present appeal. 3. Sufficient cause has been shown. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the present interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 257 of 2026: 5. The present appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 27.01.2026 disposing of W.P.(L) No. 189 of 2012 by remanding the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Dhanbad for admitting additional evidence and passing a fresh award. 6. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-BSNL, submits that the application at Annexure-7 before the CGIT regarding calling for relevant documents from the BSNL was never pressed by the workmen and that is the reason why the CGIT did not pass any orders on such application. He submits that without considering this aspect, the learned Single Judge should not have remanded the matter and given a fresh opportunity to the workmen. 7. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha further submits that the workmen never applied for examining the concerned SDO. In absence of any such application before the CGIT, the learned Single Judge grossly erred in giving the workmen an additional opportunity of calling the SDO concerned to depose in the matter and to produce any documents available with the BSNL. 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 4 8. On the above two grounds, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha submits that learned Single Judge’s impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 9. We have considered the two contentions now raised before us and also perused the materials on record. Upon such consideration and evaluation, we are satisfied that these contentions lack merit and are possibly raised only to delay the proceedings before the CGIT and wilt/crush the resistance of the workmen. As it is, the record indicates that several workmen have expired during the pendency without securing the benefits they claim. From the nature of objections the BSNL has raised during the proceedings, and its far from candid approach in producing all the relevant documents within its control and possession, we do get the impression that the BSNL is bent upon prolonging the adjudication of the dispute, so that such delay forces the workmen to abandon their claims or some more workmen expire before the adjudication is completed. This appeal, followed by an insistence of stay of the remanded proceedings before the CGIT, is yet another attempt in this direction. 10. Besides, on a consideration of the two contentions now raised, we are satisfied that they lack merit. 11. Firstly, the records show that the workmen, vide Annexure-7, had applied for documents that could have supported their case, but, according to them, the same were in the possession of the BSNL (employer). No order was passed upon such application, meaning it was not considered by the CGIT at all. 12. The contention that the workmen did not press the application at Annexure-7 cannot be accepted, as the impugned award does not state that such application was not pressed. There is no record to 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 5 support such a contention. No written application was made on behalf of the workmen for not pressing the application at Annexure-7. No good reason has been assigned as to why the workmen would not press such an application, when, according to them, the same related to the documents that could have supported their case. 13. Therefore, the CGIT erred in not considering the workmen’s application at Annexure-7 and in proceeding to make the award, which was impugned before the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in remanding the matter to the CGIT with a direction to call for the records available with the respondents regarding the documents demanded by the workmen under Annexure-7. Such a direction warrants no interference in this appeal. 14. The second contention, that there was no application from the workmen to summon the SDO concerned, is also not a good ground to interfere with the impugned remand order. The CGIT is, at any stage, competent to call for the relevant evidence and witnesses in the interests of justice, if so required. In particular, in industrial adjudication, strict rules of procedure cannot be insisted upon. The presence of the SDO concerned was necessary in the context of the documents demanded by the workmen, which were alleged to be in the possession of the BSNL (employer). There is no jurisdictional error in directing the CGIT to call for the relevant evidence of the SDO concerned, in such facts and circumstances. 15. Further, it is crucial to note that the workmen alleged that the BSNL (employer) had failed to make a candid disclosure of all the documents in its possession. As a model employer, even BSNL should have produced all relevant documents, whether they assist 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 6 the workmen's case or not. The direction to call for the documents listed in Annexure-7, or to call for the relevant evidence from the concerned SDO, has to be evaluated from this perspective as well. BSNL cannot be allowed to benefit from its far from candid approach. 16. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently dismiss the same without any order for costs. 17. The learned Single Judge has directed conclusion of remanded proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of the order. That direction is reiterated and should be complied with by the CGIT. Further, it is the duty of all the parties to co-operate with the CGIT in the matter of compliance with the time-bound directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and now reiterated by us in this order. 18. Before we part, one clarification is due, as otherwise BSNL appears capable of taking undue advantage of the slight ambiguity. The impugned order sets aside the CGIT award dated 21.07.2011. To avoid the impression that the entire award has been set aside, we clarify that the award dated 21.07.2011 granted relief to 22 workmen. This relief was challenged by BSNL by instituting W.P.(L) No. 324 of 2012. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2012. Even the L.P.A. against the same was dismissed. This means that the relief granted to the said 22 workmen has attained finality. 19. W.P.(L) No. 189 of 2012 and the present L.P.A. preferred against the order dated 27.01.2026 disposing of the same concern the 145 workmen, out of whom 86 workmen filed W.P.(L) No. 189 of 2012. 20. This clarification was found to be necessary because paragraph No. 27 of the impugned order might give the impression that the entire 2026:JHHC:19034-DB 7 award dated 21.07.2011 had been quashed and set aside. Based thereon, the BSNL may attempt to deny the 22 workmen, who were granted relief by the said award and grant of such relief, has already attained finality. This obviously cannot be allowed. 21. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, will not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 30.06.2026 Satish/Vikas/