Subhash Vishwakarma vs Union Of India Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2949 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P. (L) No. 7373 of 2019
                                        ------

1. Subhash Vishwakarma

2. Arjun Prasad ...Petitioner(s).

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Department of Law, New Delhi

2. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

          3. Laxmi Vishwakarma
          4. Md. Jawed Ansari
          5. Sri Santosh Vishwakarma
          6. Sri Niwaran Vishwakarma                            ... Respondent(s)

                                       ------
          CORAM        :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                             Through: Video Conferencing
                                       ------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Mohua Palit, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

09/17.08.2021: Petitioners in this application has challenged the award dated 12.02.2013 passed in Reference No. 10 of 2000 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised the point that a reference once made under the Industrial Disputes Act before a tribunal has to be answered. He submits that the said reference cannot be dismissed for default on ground of non-appearance of parties.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the dispute was referred in the year 1999 and the workmen did not take any interest after filing the statement of claims and documents. He submits that having no other alternative, the Tribunal has passed the impugned award. Further he submits that award dated 12.02.2013, which has been challenged in this writ application has been filed in the year 2019 which clearly suggests that the workmen have lost interest.

Heard the counsel for the parties. I have gone through the award dated 12.02.2013. Dispute arose between management of Katras, area of M/s BCCL and their employees/workmen. The reference of the dispute was made by order dated 20.12.1999 by the Central Government, Ministry of Labour for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad. The dispute was in respect of grant of pay scale and status to the workmen of BCCL and also for regularizing their services. Before the tribunal, as it is apparent from the award, the parties filed their claims and written statements along with the documents. After the case was fixed for evidence the workmen did not appear nor produced any witness. Since the matter was kept pending, the tribunal vide the impugned award held that there is no dispute between the parties so a no dispute award had been passed.

The dispute is referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Acts. When a dispute is raised, the same is referred for adjudication. The Tribunal has to adjudicate the same and answer the reference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khazan Singh (dead) by LRS. Versus Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242 in para no. 7 has held as under:-

7. The provisions above subsumed would thus make it clear that the civil court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the civil court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the party concerned. But non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the civil court to dismiss the reference for default.

Though the aforesaid case deals with a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, but the same analogy can be applied here also.Thus from the aforesaid judgment, it is quite clear that a reference must be answered even if the parties do not appear before the Tribunal.

Further, I find that since there was a dispute and the dispute was referred for adjudication, the Tribunal could not have held that there is no dispute between the parties, nor could have passed a "no dispute award". The procedure undertaken by the Tribunal is erroneous in law, as a result of which the award needs to be set aside. Thus the award dated 12.02.2013 passed in Reference No. 10 of 2000 by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad is set aside.

Tribunal is directed to proceed and answer the reference which has been referred and registered as Reference No. 10 of 2000. It is expected that the reference should be answer within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With this aforesaid observation, this application stands allowed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Rajnish/c.p.2