Employers In Relation To The ... vs Their Workmen Being Represented ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2946 Jhar

                                  1                             L.P.A No.229 of 2020




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

                          L.P.A No. 229 of 2020

Employers in relation to the Management of Govindpur Project of M/s.
Central Coalfields Ltd., PO Bokaro Thermal, PS Kathara, District - Bokaro
through Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Ramji Singh, General Manager
(Administration), Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O.- Darbhanga House, P.S.-
Kotwali, District Ranchi                        ... Petitioner/Appellant
                            Versus

Their workmen being represented by the General Secretary, United Coal
Workers Union No. 4 Area, Bermo, PO Jaridih Bazar, P.S.- Bermo, District
Bokaro                                    .....Respondent/Respondent
                           --------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant          : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
                             Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent         : None
                              ---------------

Order No.07/Dated:17th August 2023
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th May 2019 passed by the learned writ Court in WP (L) No. 6426 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the Award dated 20th May 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 216 of 1987.

3. Although the reference was in connection with 70 workmen but the reference was answered only in favour of 13 workmen with a direction upon the management to pay the difference of wages to the concerned workmen from the date of their appointment till the date of regularization of their services as Driver in Category-V with respect to 6 workmen and Clerk Grade-III with respect to 7 workmen. No relief was granted in favour of the remaining workmen.

Arguments of the appellant-management.

4. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned writ

Court has failed to consider that once the appointment letters for 13 workmen were issued in Mazdoor Category-I who were subsequently regularised as Drivers in category V/ Clerks Grade-III, there was no occasion to give them the enhanced wages for the intervening period during which they had worked as Mazdoor Category-I. He has submitted that it is not in dispute that 6 persons were appointed as General Mazdoor Category-I on 26th September 1983 and they were regularised against the post of Clerk Grade-III on 30th June 1986 and 7 persons appointed as Mazdoor Category-I were regularised as Drivers on 1st December 1986/12th January 1986 in Category-V. He submits that the matter relates to difference of wages during the intervening period. He submits that the Award of the learned Tribunal is perverse and the learned writ Court was not justified in refusing to interfere with the Award. Findings of this Court.

5. The terms of reference by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was as follows: -

"Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Project of C.C. Ltd., P.O. Bokaro Thermal, Dist. Giridih in denying payment of difference of wages and non-regularisation of S/Sri Keshab Lal Mahato, Lakhan Lal Mahato and 68 others as per annexure attached with the schedule who have been working in higher categories for the last about 4 years is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

6. The respondent union representing the workmen as well as the management both examined one witness each as WW-1 and MW-1 respectively in support of their respective claims. A number of documents were also exhibited before the learned Tribunal.

7. The witness on behalf of respondent-union, WW-1-Lakhan Lal Mahato disclosed in his evidence that out of 70 employees, management recruited 31 employees through Employment Exchange and the rest employees came on transfer from other collieries. He stated that Basudeb Gope, Rameshwar Prajapati, Vivisan Mahato, Babali Mahato, Baiju Rajak, Ali Hussain, Kishan Singh were employed by the management as Category-I Mazdoor though their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of driver. They were

also interviewed for the post of driver and selected for the said post. He further stated that these workmen, though were employed as Category-I, the management deployed them as Drivers. It was further stated that these workmen were ultimately regularised as driver in Category- V in the year 1986 and 1987.

8. WW-1 further deposed that Biswanath Mahato, Roshanlal Mahato, Badri Prasad, Lakhan Lal Mahato, Hemant Kumar, Mahalal Mahato and Rit Lal Mahato were recruited by the management to the post of Category-I Mazdoor though their names were forwarded by Employment Exchange for the post of LDC. These workmen were interviewed for the post of LDC and were also selected for the same, but they were designated as Category-I Mazdoor in the year 1983 and their services were regularised in Grade-III in the year 1986. He deposed that though the management issued appointment letters to them as Category-I Mazdoor in the year 1983, they were deployed by the management for discharging their duties as LDC. In support of the claim in connection with aforesaid 13 workmen, their interview letters were produced in the course of evidence which were marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-12 and W-14.

9. The learned Tribunal, after carefully considering these interview letters, recorded a finding that there could not be any dispute to hold that the management issued the interview letters for filling up the post of LDC and Drivers. The learned Tribunal also recorded a finding on the basis of materials on record that these workmen were interviewed for the post of LDC and Drivers, but they got their appointment as Category-I Mazdoor. Such findings have been recorded in internal page 5 of the Award.

10. The learned Tribunal ultimately recorded at paragraph 12 of the Award that there was sufficient reason to believe that the management illegally and arbitrarily issued letters of appointment to these workmen as Category-I Mazdoor though they were selected for the post of Drivers and Clerks. It has further been recorded that they did not consider necessary to pay difference of wages to these workmen and clerks during the intervening period in spite of receiving their services as such.

11. The learned Tribunal, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances, held that the claim of the sponsoring union in respect of

workmen who were selected for the post of Drivers and clerks stand on cogent footing. The learned Tribunal has also rejected the argument of the management on the point that these workmen did not raise any dispute at the time of joining as Category-I Mazdoor or immediately after joining the said post and that they were estopped from claiming such benefit and raising the dispute at a subsequent date, by recording that the workmen were in weaker position while they got their appointment and that the management, taking the benefit of helplessness of these workmen, exploited their services and placed them in such category which they did not deserve as per the Wage Board recommendation. The learned Tribunal also recorded that a fair play was expected from the management in dealing with the concerned workmen who were selected for the post of Drivers and Clerks, but it did not do so for the reasons best known to them. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that there was no cogent reason to hold that the claim of these 13 workmen can be ignored taking the plea of estoppel as raised by the management in the course of hearing.

12. After having recorded the aforesaid findings based on materials produced before the learned Tribunal, the reference was answered only in favour of the aforesaid 13 workmen and the claim of others were rejected. The reference has been answered as follows: -

"13. However, the sponsoring union in respect of the other workmen have failed to substantiate the claim in question and for which they are not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered: -

'The action of the management of Govindpur Project of CCL., PO Bokaro Thermal, Dist. Giridih in denying payment of difference of wages of the concerned workmen namely the drivers and the clerks as per schedule of reference from the date of their joining as Cat. I Mazdoor till the date of their regularization in service in Cat.V and Grade-III Clerk was not legal and justified.

Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the difference of wages of the concerned workmen named above from the date of their appointment till the date of regularization of their services as drivers in Cat.V and Clerks Gr. III respectively within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India."

13. This Court finds that the learned writ Court considered the materials and recorded its finding in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order which is quoted as under:

"7. It appears from a perusal of impugned Award dated 20.05.2003 that the same has been restricted to Basudeb Gope, Rameshwar Prajapati,

Vivisan Mahato, Babli Mahato, Baiju Rajak, Ali Hussain, Biswanath Mahato, Roshanlal Mahato, Badri Prasad, Lakhan Lal Mahato, Hemant Kumar, Mohanlal Mahato and Ritlal Mahato. The reference was with respect to 70 workmen and so far as the letters of interview from the management for the post of Lower Division Clerk and since they are selected for the said posts, regularization of service of 56 workmen in different category and grades are concerned, it appears that the post of 34 workmen were redesignated and 199 piece rated workmen were regularized as category I Mazdoors. The dispute therefore centres around the case of the workmen who were interviewed for the posts of driver and LDC, but were appointed as category I Mazdoor. It is also seen that the posts were vacant and names were taken from the Employment Exchange and the interview letters were also issued for selection to the post of Driver and Lower Division Clerk. The said workmen were however issued appointment letter of category I mazdoor and work of higher responsibility were taken from them till their date of regularization as Driver in category V and Clerk in Grade III. The Management has not denied that the names of the concerned workmen were forwarded by the Employment Exchange for the posts of Driver and Lower Division Clerks. The said workmen seems to have been regularized in terms of Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 14 as Driver category V w.e.f. 21.12.1985 and 01.12.1986, whereas the other workmen who were interviewed for the post of Lower Division Clerks were regularized as Grade III Clerks in terms of Exhibits 11, 12 & 13. The Management has merely taken a stand that as per Cadre Scheme, they were allowed to undergo training and were subsequently regularized, but the Management has failed to state as to why in spite of taking names from Employment Exchange for the post of Drivers and Lower Division Clerks pursuant to which interview letters were also issued referring to the said categories, the appointment letters disclose otherwise as the said workmen were merely appointed as Category I Mazdoors. The Management has also failed to counter the assertion of the workmen concerned that work of higher responsibility were taken from the said workmen and in fact since Govindpur Project was itself a virgin mine, such contention on the part of the concerned workmen does appear to be further substantiated by the said fact. The Management had subsequently regularized the services of the workmen concerned as Drivers in Category V and Grade III Clerk to which posts the workmen concerned were already officiating, though they were appointed as Category I Mazdoors and therefore the management was liable to pay the difference of wages of the Drivers and Clerks from the date of their joining as Category I Mazdoor till the date of their regularization in service in Category V as Driver and Grade III Clerk."

14. The learned writ Court found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

15. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has categorically recorded finding that the aforesaid 13 employees were called for interview from the Employment

Exchange for the post of Clerk Grade-III/Driver but they were ultimately issued appointment letters under General Mazdoor Category-I. Learned Tribunal has also given a finding that aforesaid 13 persons were performing the work in the post of Clerk Category-III/ Driver although they were issued appointment letter as Mazdoor Category-I. The learned Tribunal also rejected the plea of the appellant that the aforesaid 13 persons were estopped from challenging their appointment as Mazdoor Category-I after having accepted the same and not protesting immediately after joining by citing reasons that the workmen were at much weaker position as compared to the appellant and the action of the appellant was not fair in issuing appointment letters under Mazdoor Category-I though the 13 persons were called for interview for the post of Clerk Category-III/Driver and they were throughout doing the work of employees appointed under Clerk Category-III/ Driver. The findings of the Award with respect to 13 persons have already been discussed above in details.

16. After considering the materials on record, the learned Tribunal has passed the Award and has directed for payment of the differential wages by recording that 13 workmen were discharging their duties in the Clerk Grade-III/Driver though they were regularised in the concerned post at a later stage. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal gave a direction to give difference of wages only for the differential period i.e. from the date of initial appointment to the date of regularisation.

17. This Court finds that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the materials on record and the learned writ Court considered the same and found that there was no perversity in the Award. This Court has also gone through the Award as well as the judgment passed by the learned writ Court and finds that there is no illegality and perversity in the Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the learned writ Court has rightly refused to interfere. It is also to be kept in mind that every mistake by the Industrial Tribunal is not material and cannot be a basis to interfere with the Award. In "Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen" (1967) 1 SCR 652 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the object behind Industrial Disputes Act is to maintain industrial peace and harmony and if affirming the Award would be in furtherance of achieving the said goal the writ Court

should not interfere with the Award.

18. This Court has examined the Award as well as the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court from all permissible aspects in a matter arising out of an industrial dispute, but no ground for interference has been made out by the appellant.

19. Finding no merits in this appeal, LPA No. 229 of 2020 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 17th August 2023 Tanuj / N.A.F.R.