( 2026:JHHC:9873 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 3561 of 2024 Dilip Kumar, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Ram Bhaju Singh, Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor, Resident of Prem Nagar, Hindu Mission Road, Mada Colony, Hirap, P.O. and P.S.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Labour, Shram Mantralaya, P.O. & P.S.- Chanakyapuri, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Employers in relation of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited represented by its chairman -cum- Managing Director bearing its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.- Kusunda, District- Dhanbad. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the BCCL : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, A.C. to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the UoI : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. Panel Counsel : Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate --- 05/07.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing of order/ award dated 05.09.2017 passed by Mr. R.K. Saran, learned Presiding Officer, Central government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 (Annexure-1) in connection with Reference No. 54/2013 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has held that the action of the management in not making payment of the total amount of full salary with interest for the intervening period from October, 2005 to July 2007 when the workman was put under suspension, while working as Medical Clerk in East Basuria Colliery and the management had only issued charge-sheet contained in Letter No. 2198 dated 29.09.2005 asking the workman to file a show cause as to why departmental proceeding be not contemplated against him on the allegation of making unauthorized construction on plot No. 2411 in Bhuli township of M/s B.C.C.L. and thereafter in view of the show cause/reply submitted by the workman namely K.D.P. Yadav management closed the departmental proceeding against the workman and allowed the workman to join duty with effect from 07.08.2007 and thereafter and workman ( 2026:JHHC:9873 ) 2 retired from the service with effect from 31.07.2009 while working as a Medical Clerk in Fast Basuria Colliery. (ii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ9s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. The terms of reference was as under: - “Whether the action of the Management of East Bassuria Colliery of BCCL in not paying the difference of subsistence allowance to Sri K.D.P. Yadav, Ex- Medical Clerk is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 4. The findings of the learned Tribunal are as under:- 7. Short point to be decided in this case is whether the workman is entitled to difference of subsistence allowance or not. In the reference the period of suspension has not been mentioned. Moreover the workman unable to speak, what amount is due. Again he speaks for arrear of wages he applied before the State Labour Court and got the amount. But that fact he has not mentioned in his written Statement or in his evidence in chief. In cross-examination before the Tribunal he speaks as follows: - “It is a fact that I was receiving allowance, during my period of suspension of course not the full amount. It is a fact that I filed LC case (Misc. Jurisdiction case) for difference of wage. In state Labour Court I got the some of wage. The difference of wage which I received by order of Court, in it the period of suspension was included. The payment calculated in state Labour Court has already been received by me.” 8. The management has also filed the order of the State Labour Court’s where in it is seen that he received the arrear amount with interest and cost. Since the reference is silent regarding period of suspension and claim. And the workman unable to relate it and admitted that he received his arrear wage from State labour Court, this Tribunal unable to give him any relief.” ( 2026:JHHC:9873 ) 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court has wrongly passed the impugned Award against the petitioner. 6. The findings of the learned Tribunal reveals that the workman had not mentioned about the period of suspension and was also not able to speak about what amount was due on account of subsistence allowance. The Award also reveals that the petitioner had also applied for arrears of wages vide M.J. Case No. 52 of 2011 in which the point regarding subsistence allowance was also raised which is apparent from paragraph 5 of the Award and the petitioner was also cross examined on the point as is apparent from paragraph 7 of the Award. Thus, it appears that the petitioner had earlier raised the claim of subsistence allowance also in M.J. Case No. 52 of 2011 and in the present case the petitioner was neither able to give the period of suspension nor was able to mention the due amount. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has not pointed out any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned Award does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 07.04.2026 Uploaded on 10.04.2026 Binit/