2026:JHHC:8052 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 3755 of 2025 Binay Kumar Mallik, aged about 60 years, son of Ganpati Mallik, resident of Quarter No.95/2/1, Road No.7, Adityapur, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, Post Sakchi, Police Station Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 3. M/s. Accropoly Metal Industries (Pvt). Limited through its Managing Director officiating from M-10 (P), Unit-II, IV Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Post Gamharia, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan 4. The Director Finance Cum General Manager (Human Resources), M/s. Accropoly Metal Industries (Pvt). Limited officiating from M-10 (P), Unit-II, IV Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Post Gamharia, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA V --- 04/23.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the State is present. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “I). For issuance of an appropriate writ/ Rule/ Direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith pay the wages to the petitioner outstanding as dues from 12.08.2019 till 25.02.2025 i.e the date of pronouncement of the order passed in I.D. Case No. 14 of 2019 (hereinafter called Industrial Dispute Case No. 14 of 2019) whereby and whereunder the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Jamshedpur has failed to appreciate the Provisions of Section 2 A of the Industrial Dispute Act arising out of Section 25 F. II). For issuance of an appropriate writ/ Rule/ Direction upon the respondents particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of Wages, Gratuity and other the Pensionary Benefits enumerated in the Appointment letter 2026:JHHC:8052 2 dated 26.12.2016 on the same Basic Wages of Rs. 15,000/- per month and VDA and other allowances including Bonus. III). For issuance of an appropriate writ/ Rule/ Direction upon the respondents particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents for enhancing of the compensation amount awarded vide an order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Jamshedpur. iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking a mandamus from this Court in terms of the reliefs prayed for. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner had moved the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in I.D. Case No.14 of 2019 whereby the petitioner had sought for a relief seeking a direction upon the private respondents for granting lay off compensation as enumerated under Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he has been granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The findings of the award are quoted as under: “20. From the above facts which is available on the record I find and hold that the applicant is a worker of O.P who has been orally discharges from his service as per M.W.1 para 16 during the cross examination and the O.P is ready to take back in the original position as per para 10 of M.W.1 & 2. Therefore, it is clear that he applicant who is a permanent worker of O.P: is orally terminated without giving any notice or holding any enquiry and also without complying the provision of Sec. 25C of the I.D Act. 21. Considering the case of both the parties and discussing he material available on record I rely with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and find and hold that the applicant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as he is fighting the case from the year 2019 and the O.P has not given any letter to join his job only they are saying that they are ready to take back to applicant in his original position and also the applicant is not claiming the relief of back wages. The applicant is also entitled for reinstatement as the applicant pray for his relief and the statement of M.W.1 & 2 para 10 of W.S para 15. Accordingly, consideration point is decided in favour of applicant and against the O.P. 22. Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the workman Binay Kumar Mallik within 90 days from the date of declaration of this Award 2026:JHHC:8052 3 falling which the applicant shall be entitled with interest @ 9% of the amount from the date of declaration of this Award till its payment/recovery through process of law. The management is also directed to reinstate the workman Binay Kumar Mallik within 90 days from the date of the declaration of award.” 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court as to how a prayer seeking a writ of mandamus is maintainable in connection with the dispute adjudicated by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Jamshedpur. To this, the learned counsel has submitted that it has been mentioned in the prayer itself that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act arising out of Section 25F. It has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled to payment of back wages right from 12.08.2019 till 25.02.2025 (the date of the award). 8. This Court finds that admittedly the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was relating to lay off and claim itself was made under Section 25C of Industrial Disputes Act dealing with right of the workman laid off to claim compensation. The petitioner had filed a petition seeking relief under Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act and he was granted the relief of compensation. The petitioner had joined the service on 02.06.2017 and as per the case of the petitioner, he was laid off since 12.08.2019 onwards. The case was filed in the year 2019 itself. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court. 9. This is apart from the fact that the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus from this Court commanding upon the respondents to pay the wages for the period from 12.08.2019 till 25.02.2025. It is important to note that as per the writ petition, the management, after the disposal of the case, had filed a petition (Annexure-7) before the learned Labour Court that as per the company’s record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 08.09.1963 and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and the management prayed before the learned Labour Court to direct the petitioner to collect the compensation 2026:JHHC:8052 4 amount as the management enclosed the demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the workman. As stated in the writ petition in paragraph 25, the date of superannuation as per management would be 08.09.2023. However, it is not the case of the writ petitioner before this Court that as per management’s record his date of birth is other than 08.09.1963 and if this date is taken into consideration, the petitioner would be retiring on any other date. Rather, the case in para 25 of the writ petition is that the services of the petitioner is deemed to be extended till the pronouncement of the award. This Court is of the considered view that there is no concept of extension of period of service beyond the date of superannuation. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus from this Court with respect to payment of wages till 25.02.2025. No such relief can be granted by this Court and such prayer is misconceived. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no mandamus as prayed for can be issued by this Court nor any perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the award passed by the learned Labour Court granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner under Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. 11. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an observation may be made that the petitioner may get the amount awarded by the learned Labour Court by initiating appropriate proceeding as per law. 12. It would be sufficient to observe that it is certainly open to the petitioner to get the awarded amount through the process of law as may be permissible under law. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.03.2026 Saurav/- Uploaded on 30.03.2026