Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The ... vs Their Workman Represented By ... on 16 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(L) No. 2144 of 2015
........
Employers in relation to the Management
of Rajmahal Project, Lalmatia under
Rajmahal Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited.
.... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workman represented by Bharatiya
Coal Dump Mazdoor Sangh, Sundapur,
Pirpaity, Bhagalpur, Bihar .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
........
07/16.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta
assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Rajesh Lala.
The Employers in relation to the Management of Rajmahal Project,
Lalmatia under Rajmahal Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited through
its General Manager [I/C], Akhilesh Pandey, son of Late Sushil Pandey,
having its Office at / Resident of - At : Rajamahal Area, Post Office -
Barasimra, Police Station - Mahagama, District - Godda has preferred this
writ petition against the award dated 24.12.2014 passed by Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 323/2000,
whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the Management to pay a sum
of Rs. 80,000/- to each workman within two months from the publication
of the Award in the Gazettee. In case the workman died in the meantime,
his LRs be paid the said amount within the above stipulated period, after
proper identification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta has
submitted that from perusal of Schedule made in Reference No. 323/2000,
it appears that these 84 workmen (as per list) engaged under the
Contractors for last 13 years for permanent absorption in the Company, as
such, as per Reference, these 84 workmen have never worked in the
Company, rather they have worked under Contractor of the Company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view
of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Director, Steel
Authority of India Limited Vs. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 440 (Para-22 to 24, 48 & 49), the Reference
cannot be affirmed in favour of the workman, as such, notice may be
issued to the respondents.
Paragraphs-22 to 24, 48 & 49 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-
22. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dena
Nath Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd. and submits that mere violation of the prohibition
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act would not entail absorption of the
contract labour and at the best could be considered as further continuation to be illegal
resulting in penal consequences envisaged under Section 23 to 25 of the Act.
23. Per contra, Shri. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the finding recorded by the High Court
in the impugned judgment further submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest
error in not appreciating the documentary/oral evidence on record and thus on
reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court was convinced that the finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal under its award dated 16th September, 2009, being perverse,
based on no evidence, has rightly interfered and recorded a finding that the contract
was sham and bogus and in consequence thereof in terms of the Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court, the workmen became employee of the principal employer
(SAIL) in the instant case and entitled for the wages payable to the regular employee of
the appellant SAIL and be considered for regularisation of service.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the employees are entitled for the
back wages which has been wrongly denied by the High Court without any justiciable
reasons and as they are contesting their claim immediately after their services were
terminated, the delay in fact has caused because of 3-4 rounds of litigation and was
also due to the fact that earlier it was held by this Court in Air India Statutory
Corporation case that immediately on the issuance of a prohibition notification under
Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the contract labour become entitled for automatic
absorption in the establishment wherein he was working prior to passing of the
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, which has been although overruled
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and
Others(supra) at a later point of time but at least there are no latches on the part of the
employees and they are entitled for wages for the period they have worked and
discharged their duties in the establishment of SAIL and denial of their actual wages by
the High Court in the impugned judgment is legally not sustainable.
48. It is true that judgment in Dena Nath and Others (supra) is in reference to
failure of compliance of Section 7 and 12 and not in reference to Section 10(1) of the
CLRA Act but if we look into the scheme of CLRA Act which is a complete code in
itself, noncompliance or violation or breach of the provisions of the CLRA Act, it
result into penal consequences as has been referred to in Sections 23 to 25 of the Act
and there is no provision which would entail any other consequence other than
provided under Section 23 to 25 of the Act.
49. In our considered view, the Tribunal under its award dated 16th September,
2009 has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the contract was not sham and bogus
and there shall be no automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of a
prohibition notification under the CLRA Act and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
has committed a manifest error in reversing the finding of fact in return under its
impugned judgment dated 6th September, 2010 which, in our view, is not sustainable
and deserves to be set aside.
Considering the same, let notice be issued to respondent - Their
Workman represented by Bharatiya Coal Dump Mazdoor Sangh,
Sundapur, Pirpaity, Post Office - Pipaity, Police Station - Pirpaity,
District - Bhagalpur (Bihar), under both process i.e. under registered cover
with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must
be filed within two weeks.
Put up this case after service of notice.
During pendency of the writ petition, the impugned award dated
24.12.2014 passed by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.
I, Dhanbad in Reference No. 323/2000 shall remain stayed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
