Kisto Bouri vs Chief Manager (Mining) Project Officer

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts namely Labour Court Dhanbad cum Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad have concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Learned counsel for the parties have advanced their arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that concession in law is no concession in the eyes of law and there could only be concession on facts. The learned counsel has submitted that the concession was with regard to jurisdiction upon a submission made by the respondent that the Labour Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 77 (State of Rajasthan and Another versus Surendra Mohnot and Others) Paragraph 17.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the submission were rightly made based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the identity of the workmen was to be done by the Industrial Tribunal. This is in spite of the fact that Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court have concurrent jurisdiction with regard to proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed in (2011) 12 SCC 658 (Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet versus Noor Ahmed Shariff and Others) paragraph 14 and (2020) 13 SCC 188 (Om Prakash versus Suresh Kumar) para 15 to submit that the concession extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is binding on the petitioner.

Judgment is reserved.

Counsel for the petitioners are directed to file short notes of their submissions made in court within a week from today.