2026:JHHC:9292 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 4842 of 2019 Chief Managing (Mining) / Project Officer, Govindpur Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. - Katras, District - Dhanbad, through Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Gauri Shankar Singh, Project Officer, Govindpur Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., resident of At & P.O. & P.S. Sonardih, District - Dhanbad, PIN- 826125. … … Petitioner Versus Kisto Bouri, son of Late Kanahai Bouri, Clay Cartridge Mazdoor, Govindpur Colliery, resident of Village Jamua, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad, PIN - 826125. … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate --- 14/1st April 2026 1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “(i) For quashing the judgement dated 27.2.2019 passed by Sri Virendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in M.J. Case No. 03/2012 (Annexure-8); whereby the said learned Labour Court has been pleased to allow the application filed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act, 1947) and has directed payment of arrears of back wages from 13.9.1983 to 30.6.2011. The learned court has further been pleased to direct the petitioner to calculate the admissible amount to be paid to the applicant and to deduct the amount already paid to the applicant in lieu of wages; AND/OR (ii) Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2026:JHHC:9292 2 2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 7084/2019 decided on 30.09.2024. It has also been submitted that paragraph 20 to 24 of the said judgment be also quoted in the present order. 3. Paragraph 20 to 24 of the judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 7084/2019 are quoted as under: - “20. This Court finds that the learned labour court has considered the materials with respect to the identity and has returned a finding based on the materials produced before the Court. There is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences produced before the learned labour court to come to a different finding in writ proceedings in absence of any perversity. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner that the respondent was unable to prove her identity does not call for any interference as the said finding is based on appreciation of materials placed on record. 21. So far as the computation of the amount is concerned, the operative portion of the award although does not give the exact quantum but it indicates that the applicant would be entitled for the back wages as claimed in the annexures to the claim petition. 22. This Court finds that admittedly the petitioner did not file their own computation and the petitioner simply denied the computation. In such circumstances, the amount of the award is a quantified award though referable to the annexures to the claim petition which contains the quantified claim. The learned court also directed to calculate the admissible amount after deducting the amount already paid although there is no evidence from the side of the petitioner regarding any amount paid to the workman. 23. So far as the award of interest is concerned, this Court finds that the same is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 6969/2017 decided on 19.06.2023 wherein this Court has held that the learned Labour Court/industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct payment of interest over and above the quantified amount payable under section 33 (c ) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the amount so computed is recoverable through certificate proceedings and in case the amount is sought to be recovered through certificate proceedings , the statutory interest , as applicable to the certificate proceedings will 2026:JHHC:9292 3 be payable in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid judgement, the direction of the learned labour court to pay interest @ 6% cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly such direction is set-aside. So far as the remaining portion of the award is concerned, the same requires no interference. 24. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” 4. In view of the joint submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as passed in W.P. (L) No. 7084/2019. 5. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 Uploaded On: 03.04.2026 Mukul/-