Jharkhand High Court Upholds Justice After 40 Years: Tata Motors Worker Reinstated Posthumously

Ranchi: In a landmark ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court, overturning the 1984 dismissal of a Tata Motors employee who had allegedly raised his voice against medical negligence. The case, spanning over four decades, highlights both workers’ rights and corporate accountability.

Background of the Case
The dispute began in February 1983 when C.K. Singh, a permanent motor mechanic in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company (now Tata Motors), underwent surgery at the company hospital in Jamshedpur. Post-surgery, a surgical stitch was reportedly left in his testicle, causing severe pain and septic infection. When Singh sought re-admission, he was allegedly refused treatment and told to return the next day. In unbearable pain, he reportedly raised his voice at the attending doctor. A formal complaint was filed by the senior surgeon, citing the use of “abusive language” by Singh.

Following departmental proceedings, Singh was found “guilty” of misconduct and dismissed on 16 June 1984.

Long Legal Battle
The incident triggered an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court initially dismissed Singh’s claim for relief in 2002. However, in 2007, the High Court allowed Singh to pursue the case as an individual dispute under Section 2A of the Act.

After hearings, the Labour Court ruled Singh’s dismissal “illegal and unjust,” ordering reinstatement with 40% of back wages and continuity of service, while withholding two increments as a minor penalty. Tata Motors challenged this decision, claiming the Labour Court overstepped its jurisdiction.

High Court Verdict
During the appeal, Singh passed away, and his legal heirs were substituted in the proceedings. Justice Deepak Roshan of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed Tata Motors’ appeal, calling the Labour Court’s ruling “legal, valid, and proper.” The court noted that Singh had not engaged in any misconduct outside expressing discomfort during medical treatment.

The court also ruled that the heirs are entitled to 40% of back wages from the date of dismissal until the award date, and full wages along with other consequential benefits from the award date until Singh’s death or retirement.

Impact and Significance
The court observed that if this had involved a senior-level employee, the doctor would have been held accountable, and the patient would have been entitled to compensation. Singh’s ordeal not only exposed medical negligence but also highlighted the injustice of penalizing an employee for asserting his rights. His family endured decades of hardship, and the ruling now ensures both recognition and compensation for the wrongs suffered.

This judgment is being hailed as a rare example of delayed but definitive justice in favor of industrial workers in India.