Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union ... vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No.3646 of 2013
Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union having its registered
office at Vishwakarma Colony, Dhanbad through its
Working President Yashoda Sharan, Sector-1, Koyla
Nagar, BCCL, Dhanbad. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
3. Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
4. BCCL through its General Manager, P.B. Area, Kusunda, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Adv.
For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI.
---
10/07.09.2022: Heard the parties.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the decision
of the concerned government dated 20.12.2011, refusing the dispute for
adjudication. The impugned order dated 20.12.2011 reads as under:-
"Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report
No.1/(10)/2010.E.6 dated 18/03/2011 from the ALC(DHANBAD (Jharkhand)
received in this Ministry on 29/04/2011 on the above mentioned subject and
to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for
adjudication for the following reasons:
"The dispute of alleged denial of regularization of services of Sh.
Gour Chandra Mahato and 107 other has not supported with any
documentary evidence to substantiate their demand by the union
further, a case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of
Jharkhand on the same dispute, hence the same is not deemed fit for
adjudication"
The concerned workmen were engaged by the respondents'
organization and they have claimed that they have worked from
08.01.1990 to 28.03.1992 and thereafter, they have been disengaged.
Subsequently, they have raised industrial dispute in the year 2009.
On raising the dispute, notice has been issued to the
management by the authority dated 30.03.2010 to which the management
has replied vide reply dated 21.07.2010. The said reply has been
responded by the Union on behalf of the workmen vide their response
dated 12.12.2010. Ultimately conciliation has failed and failure report is
dated 18.03.2011. On considering the failure report, the order dated
20.12.2011 has been passed, which is impugned in the present writ
petition.
By referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others
reported in 2000(3) SCC 93 and in the case of Telco Convoy Driver's
Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1989 (3) SCC 271, it has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
concerned government is not competent to decide the dispute on merit.
The law has been settled that the concerned government cannot
decide the merit, rather it is the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Relying upon the above decision, the Workmen's Union has
prayed for quashing for the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it appears that there was dispute between the workmen and the
management. One of the disputes of one of the workmen, namely, Md.
Minhaj Hussain, regarding which industrial dispute has been raised but
the concerned government has refused to refer vide order dated
12.02.2002 and the said refusal of reference has been challenged by filing
W.P.(L) No.6344 of 2003 (Md. Minhaj Hussain vs. Union of India &
Ors.) and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2013.
While passing dismissal order, this Court has relied upon the judgments
of the Apex Court in the case of Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and
Anr. Vs. Sham Lal reported in 2006 (9) SCC 124 and in the case of
Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab and Anr. Vs. Gurmit Singh
reported in 2007 (5) SCC 727 and it has been observed that stale claim
cannot be referred or revived.
Thus, there are two issues before this Court (a) The government
has refused the reference entering into the merit of the case; and (b)
Industrial dispute has been raised after considerable delay of 19 years and
in similarly situated one of the co-worker has lost his case on the ground
of the dispute being stale.
In the present case, the concerned workmen have worked for
about two years. The dispute is of early 90s. Industrial dispute has been
raised in the year 2009 i.e. after delay of about 19 years. Thus, it can be
safely said that the dispute is stale.
Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
staleness of the dispute.
Ravi/- (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
