Jharkhand High Court
Babu Ram vs The Central Coalfields Limited ... on 21 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
Babu Ram, aged about 52 years, son of Late Ganesh Ram, resident of
Village- Goniyato, P.O.- Goniyato, P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand. Presently residing at Qr. No. 1A/113, Subhash Nagar,
Bermo, P.O.- Amlo, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 474 of 2022
Smt. Ram Bai, aged about 48 years, wife of Sri Kartik Ram, resident of
Village- Tilaimuda, P.O.- Vedwan, P.S.- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh,
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Village- Purana Minus Swang, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 475 of 2022
Pradeep Vishwakarma, aged about 50 years, son of Chandwa
Vishakarma, resident of Village- Nainatand, P.O.- Saram, P.S.- Kanch,
District- Gomia, Jharkhand. Presently residing at Purana Mainas,
Swang, P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 476 of 2022
Smt. Manmatiya Devi, aged about 42 years, wife of Sri Sarju Nonia,
resident of Village- Satbat, P.O.- Kalalbigha, P.S.- Deo, District-
2 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
Aurangabad, Bihar. Presently residing at Swang Slurry Pond, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 477 of 2022
Smt. Urmila Devi, aged about 50 years, wife of Sri Bisheshwar
Chouhan, resident of Village- Barar Bigha, P.O.- Utren, P.S.- Konch,
District- Gaya, Bihar. Presently residing at Holding No. WM/134, New
Minues Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 478 of 2022
Bisheshwar Chouhan, aged about 51 years, son of Sri Jagdish Chouhan,
resident of Village- Barar Bigha, P.O.- Utren, P.S.- Konch, District-
Gaya, Bihar. Presently residing at New Minus. Qr. No.NM/134, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 479 of 2022
Bhakala Kewat, aged about 52 years, son of Late Maindu Kewat,
resident of Village & P.O.- Pahanda, P.S.- Berla, District- Durg,
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at H. No. 887-B, Purana Maines,
Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
3 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 480 of 2022
Smt. Bahatin Bai, aged about 44 years, wife of Bodhan Rajak, resident
of Village- jawali, P.O.- Jawali, P.S.- Dabra, District- Janjegir Champa,
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Hazari More, Swang, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 484 of 2022
Punam Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Anil Kumar Chouhan,
resident of Near Central School, Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia,
District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 485 of 2022
Smt. Manki Bai, aged about 52 years, wife of Ramlal Yadav, resident
of Qr. No. MQ/2, Old Mines, P.O.- Swang Colliery, P.S.- Gomia,
District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
4 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 490 of 2022
Sarju Nonia, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Arjun Nonia, resident of
Village- Satbat, P.O.- Kalalbigha, P.S.- Deo, District- Aurangabad,
Bihar. Presently residing at Old Mines, Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.-
Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 491 of 2022
Sanichar Munda, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Chhedi Munda,
resident of Village- Chauli, P.O.- Kumhaiya, P.S.- Kanke, District-
Ranchi. Presently residing at Qr. No.324, Swang Old Mines, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 492 of 2022
Chanderdeo Chouhan, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Ramdeni
Chouhan, resident of Beldarbigha P.O.- Dabar, P.S.- Gudara, District-
Gaya, Bihar. Presently residing at Swang Mahavir Sthan, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 493 of 2022
5 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
Hiralal Chouhan, aged about 52 years, son of Late Jagdish Chouhan,
resident of Village- Barar Bigha, P.O.- Utren, P.S.- Konch, District-
Gaya, Bihar. Presently residing at Salary Side, Swang, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 494 of 2022
Bhoj Ram, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Sukh Ram, resident of
Village- Kamhari, P.O.- Dharasiv, P.S.- Kasdol, District- Raipur, State-
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Qr. No.MQ/76, Purana Minus,
Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 495 of 2022
Smt. Sabo Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of Sri Hira Lal Chauhan,
resident of Village- Barar Bigha, P.O.- Utren, P.S.- Konch, District-
Gaya, Bihar. Presently residing at Salary Side, Sawang, P.O.- Sawang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 518 of 2022
Smt. Manwa Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Sri Netka Bhuinya,
resident of Village- Dubka, P.O.- Kharki, P.S.- Bishungarh, District-
Hazaribag. Presently residing at Swang Colliery, P.O.- Swang, P.S.-
Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
6 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 519 of 2022
Puniram Yadav, aged about 53 years, son of Late Nanku Yadav,
resident of Bardula, P.O.- Uchvithi, P.S.- Kosir, District- Raigarh,
State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Swang Mahavir Sthan, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 520 of 2022
Chhotan Manjhi, aged about 47 years, son of Late Luthu Manjhi,
resident of Village- Sinyari, P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 522 of 2022
Badaki Devi , aged about 47 years, widow of Late Devi Ram Manjhi,
resident of Village- Dubka, P.O.- Kharki, P.S.- Bisnugarh, District-
Hazaribag. Presently residing at Qr. No. N.M.P.-77, New Minas
(Swang), P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
7 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
3. The General Manager (KTA), Kathara, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O. and P.S.- Kathara, District- Bokaro
4. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 523 of 2022
Smt. Fuleshwari, aged about 47 years, wife of Sri Binod Rajak, resident
of Village & P.O.- Janwali, P.S.- Dabra, District- Janjegir Champa,
State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Type-II, Qr. No.73, Hazari
More, Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 524 of 2022
Sudhir Tirkey, aged about 29 years, son of Late Bisheshwar Tirkey,
resident of Village- Madhukama, P.O.- Chandra, P.S.- Ormanjhi,
District- Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Homia, District- Bokaro
3. The General Manager (KTA), Kathara, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O. and P.S.- Kathara, District- Bokaro
4. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Homia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 525 of 2022
Duryodhan Dhobi, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Girdhari Dhobi,
resident of Village- Dabhrakhurd, P.O.- Birra, P.S.- Jaijaipur, District-
Janjegir Champa, State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Swang
Slurry Pond, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
8 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 526 of 2022
Smt. Mangri Mundain, aged about 48 years, wife of Birsha Munda,
resident of Village & P.O.- Guniyato, P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand. Presently residing at Qr. No. NM/187, Swang, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 527 of 2022
Smt. Bipat Rai, aged about 49 years, wife of Sri Bhakala Kewat,
resident of Village & P.O.- Pahanda, P.S.- Berla, District- Durg, State-
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Slurry Pond, Swang, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 528 of 2022
Smt. Firtin Bai, aged about 52 years, wife of Sri Jagdish Ram, resident
of Village- Kosir, P.O. & P.S.- Kosir, District- Raigarh, State-
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Qr. No.107, Old Miners, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 529 of 2022
9 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
Sukhi Ram Saw, aged about 62 years, son of Chot Ram, resident of
Village- Kamhari, P.O.- Dharasiv, P.S.- Kasdol, District- Raipur, State-
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Purana Maines, Swang, P.O.- Swang,
P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 530 of 2022
Kaushal Prasad, aged about 49 years, son of Ramadhar Prasad, resident
of Village- Santaldih, P.O.- Hariharpur, P.S.- Hariharpur (Gomoh),
District- Dhanbad. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 536 of 2022
Bhikari Bhuinya, aged about 46 years, son of Lagan Bhuinya, resident
of Village- Sibyari, P.O. & P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 537 of 2022
Rabindra Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Sri Prayag Prasad,
resident of Village- Khudgadda, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District-
Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
10 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 538 of 2022
Godo Ram, aged about 50 years, son of Sri Daya Ram, resident of
Village- Bansi, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 539 of 2022
Smt. Reshamati, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Godo Ram, resident of
Village- Bansi, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 540 of 2022
Smt. Bhurie Bai, aged about 51 years, wife of Fagu Ram Sidar, resident
of Qr. No.63, Type-II, Hazari More, Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia,
District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 541 of 2022
Smt. Somarin Bai, aged about 57 years, wife of Sri Subelal Rajak,
resident of Village & P.O.- Janwali, P.S.- Dabhra, District- Janjegir
11 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
Champa, State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Old Miners Quarter,
P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 542 of 2022
Smt. Nanki Bai, aged about 52 years, wife of Chhota Mali, resident of
Village- Saradih, P.O.- Sakarali, P.S.- Dabhra, District- Janjegir
Champa, Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at 1027, Purana Miners, Birsa
Swang Colliery, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 543 of 2022
Fagu Ram Sidar, aged about 55 years, son of Sri Dashiya Ram Sidar,
resident of Village- Singhra, P.O. and P.S.- Dabra, District- Janjegir
Champa, State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Purana Minus,
Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 544 of 2022
Jagdish Ram, aged about 57 years, son of Late Anand Ram, resident of
Village & P.O.- Kosir, P.S.- Kosir, District- Raigarh, State-
Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Qr. No.107, P.O.- Swang, P.S.-
Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
12 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 545 of 2022
Smt. Ram Bai, aged about 52 years, wife of Puni Ram Yadav, resident
of Village- Bardula, P.O.- Uchvithi, P.S.- Kosir, District- Raigarh,
State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Swang Slurry Pond, P.O.-
Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 559 of 2022
Smt. Nanki Devi, aged about 55 years, wife of Late Ramlal Satnami,
resident of Village- Anda, P.O.- Kirari, P.S.- Malkharaunda, District-
Janjegir Champa, State- Chhatisgarh. Presently residing at Mahavir
Sthan, Swang, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 564 of 2022
Karan Yadav, aged about 30 years, son of Late Ramlal Yadav, resident
of Swang Salary Site, P.O.- Swang, P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
13 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 605 of 2022
Smt. Pancham Devi, aged about 52 years, wife of Kanchan Munda,
resident of Village- Chauliulatu, P.O.- Kumhariya, P.S.- kanke,
District- Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 52 of 2023
Smt. Balwa Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Thakur Karmali,
resident of Village- Singali Tola, Gomia, P.O. & P.S.- Gomia, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Chief Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O. and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Swang Washery,
P.O.- Swang and P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 552 of 2022
1. Sanaw Ram, aged about 52 years, son of Late Paras Ram, resident
of Village- Doma, P.O.- Chhapora, P.S.- Malkharouda, District-
Janjegir Champa, State- Chhatisgarh
2. Panmati Devi, aged about 53 years, wife of Sri Ramji Chouhan,
resident of Village- Dharhar, P.O. & P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya,
State- Bihar
3. Sumitra Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Sri Sanaw Ram, resident
of Village- Doma, P.O.- Chhapora, P.S.- Malkharouda, District-
Janjegir Champa, State- Chhatisgarh
4. Ako Devi, aged about 52 years, wife of Sri Raja Ram, resident of
Village- Beldar, P.O.- Dabar, P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya, State-
Bihar. ... ... Petitioners/Appellants
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Project Officer, Kargali Washery, B & K Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.- Berno, District- Bokaro.
14 L.P.A. No. 521 of 2022
... ... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 576 of 2022
1. Bir Banshi Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Ram Pujan
Singh, resident of Village- Naya Road Phusro, P.O.- Phusro Bazar,
P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro.
2. Adhotia Kamin, aged about 57 years, wife of Late Mansha Saw,
permanent resident of Village- & P.O.- Pahandar, P.S.- Bela,
District- Dug, State- Chattisgarh
3. Malti Bai, aged about 59 years, wife of Sri Set Ram @ Santu Ram,
permanent resident of Village- Karuwadih, P.O.- Kochonda, P.S.-
Jaijaipur, District- janjegir Champa, State- Chattisgarh
... ... Petitioners/Appellants
-Versus-
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Darbhanga House, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The Project Officer, Kargali Washery, B & K Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.- Berno, District- Bokaro.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shail Lakra, Advocate
For the Respondents-CCL: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
---
th
C.A.V. on 14 September 2023 Pronounced on 21st September 2023
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the common
judgment dated 16.08.2022 passed in W.P.(L) No.7699 of 2017 and
analogous cases whereby and whereunder the writ petitions filed by the
appellant(s) (hereinafter referred to as the workmen) have been
dismissed. The workmen had filed different writ petitions which were
decided by a common judgment impugned in these Appeals.
2. L.P.A. No. 522 of 2022 arises out of W.P.(L) No.1165/2018 in
which the appellant is the widow of the workman namely, Late Devi
Ram Manjhi. The appellant was also the writ petitioner. L.P.A. No. 524
of 2022 arises out of W.P.(L) No.1474/2018 in which the appellant is
the son of the workman namely, Late Bisheshwar Tirkey. The appellant
was also the writ petitioner. In L.P.A. No. 564 of 2022, the appellant-
Karan Yadav is the son of the workman namely, Ramlal Yadav who
was the writ petitioner in W.P.(L) No.6685/2017. During pendency of
the writ petition, he died on 15.12.2020. The appellant has filed I.A.
No.6754/2023 seeking substitution which has been allowed vide order
dated 28.08.2023.
3. The writ petitions were filed, inter alia, for quashing the Award
dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Complaint Case
No. 06/2013 (arising out of Reference No.58 of 1992) initiated on an
application filed by the workmen under section 33-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 whereby and whereunder the management was
directed to remove all the workmen who were in employment on the
basis of the Memorandum of Settlement, pending enquiry. Further
prayer was made for quashing the notices dated 07.09.2017 / notice
dated 14.09.2017 in L.P.A. No. 524 of 2022 (arising out of W.P. (L)
No. 1474 of 2018) issued pursuant to the aforesaid Award
dated 21.04.2017 removing the workmen from their services. The
workmen also prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
4. The foundational facts involved in this batch of Letters Patent
Appeals are as under:
(i) The concerned workmen claim to have been engaged by a
Contractor working for the Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter
referred to as CCL) to carry out the work of slurry removal in the
Swang Washery of the Kargali Colliery under CCL. The
notification for abolishing contract labour in the field of removal of
slurry in washery of CCL was issued on 11.12.1990. The workmen
through their association namely, Thekedar Mazdoor Union
(hereinafter referred to as "the union") sought absorption of the
contract labourers in the regular establishment of CCL. Ultimately,
the Central Government vide order dated 29.07.1992, referred the
following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication along
with a list of workmen:
"Whether the action of the management of Swang
Washery of M/s. C.C. Ltd., P.O. Swang, Dist. Giridih in
denying the absorption of these workmen who are
working as contract labour is justified? If not, to what
relief are the workmen entitled to?"
(ii) The case was registered as Reference Case No.58 of 1992.
The Industrial Tribunal passed its final Award dated 03.10.1996
directing CCL to absorb the concerned workmen in the regular
establishment and pursuant thereto, a list of contract labourers to be
absorbed was enclosed to the Award. The Award was
unsuccessfully challenged by CCL and ultimately, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court confirmed the Award vide order dated 30.08.2001
passed in Civil Appeal No.6023 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.19391 of 1999) and vide order dated 04.12.2001 Review
Petition (Civil) No.1483 of 2001 was also dismissed.
(iii) L.C. Application No. 10/2003 under Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of
1947") was filed before the Industrial Tribunal claiming payment
of wages from 11.12.1990 by referring to the aforesaid Award.
(iv) In the meantime, the union filed a writ petition being
W.P.(L) No.2795 of 2002 seeking implementation, execution and
appropriate compliance of the directions of the Industrial Tribunal,
which was disposed of vide order dated 25.09.2008 with a direction
to comply the direction passed in the Award. Thereafter, a
Memorandum of Settlement dated 04.08.2009 was reached between
the union and the management of CCL in Form-H under Rule 58 of
the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 on mutual
understanding for appointment of the workmen on the post of
Category-I Mazdoor alongwith other terms and conditions.
Consequently, 142 workmen were absorbed and appointed as
General Mazdoor Category-I under CCL.
(v) However, during pendency of aforesaid L.C. Application
No. 10/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, as many as 36 workmen
were served with charge-sheet in the year 2012, alleging
commission of fraud, impersonation and misrepresentation in the
matter of their appointment and departmental proceedings were
initiated.
(vi) Since charge-sheet was issued during pendency of L.C.
Application No. 10/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, a number
of workmen filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act of
1947 in L.C. Application No. 10/2003 alleging that issuance of
charge sheet amounted to change in their service conditions. It was
prayed that the charge sheet be set-aside; CCL be restrained from
proceeding with the enquiry and restrained from dismissing the
workmen from service during pendency of the case. The complaint
under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947 was registered as Complaint
Case No.06 of 2013.
(vii) The CCL filed its written statement in Complaint Case
No.06 of 2013 stating that the complaint was not maintainable and
no cause of action arose to file a case under section 33-A of the Act
of 1947 as the service conditions had not changed by issuance of
charge-sheet. It was also alleged by CCL that the workmen were
not the bona fide beneficiary of the Award and accordingly the
management had constituted a committee for examination of their
disputed identity and on the basis of a report, issued charge-sheets
under clause 26.9 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Order.
(viii) The Industrial Tribunal passed an Award dated 21.04.2017
in Complaint Case No.6 of 2013 by holding in paragraph-9 that the
issuance of charge-sheets for commission of misconduct is not the
change of service condition of an employee. Paragraph 9 of the
Award is quoted as under: -
"9. The committee after examination the matter submitted
its report mentioning therein that the complainants
submitted false information regarding their name, father's
name, address, and age etc and fraudulently obtained
employment in CCL. Accordingly proceeded for misconduct
under clause 26.9 and 26.22 of the certified standing order,
the opp/party issued charge sheets to the applicants. The
issuance of chargesheet for commission of misconduct is not
the change of service condition of an employee."
(ix) The Industrial Tribunal having held that issuance of charge-
sheets shall not amount to change in conditions of services,
proceeded further to observe that the Memorandum of Settlement
(MOS) was not entered into in clean hands and was the outcome of
ingenuine and fraudulent act; the case was of 1992 and question of
impersonation was prima-facie seen and consequently directed the
management to remove all the workmen who were in employment
on the basis of MOS pending enquiry. Such observations and
directions were issued by further observing that the Industrial
Tribunal had also proceeded to spot to hear the matter and also took
evidence as adduced by the parties. However, the Award does not
reflect discussion of any evidence recorded by the Industrial
Tribunal.
(x) As a consequence, and in compliance of the Award dated
21.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.6 of 2013, CCL removed
the workmen by issuing notices to the workmen. 49 workmen/legal
heirs of deceased workmen are before this Court.
(xi) Thereafter, the concerned workmen challenged the Award
dated 21.04.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.6 of 2013 and also
the consequential notices removing them from service in different
writ petitions before this Court which have been dismissed by the
impugned common judgment dated 16.08.2022 passed by the
learned writ Court in W.P.(L) No.7699 of 2017 and analogous
cases.
5. The corresponding writ numbers with regard to each L.P.A. and
certain basic details in each case are mentioned in a tabular form which
are as follows:
Sl. LPA No. Date of L.C. Memorandum Date of Charge- Complaint Award Notices
No. with Reference & Application of Settlement sheet initiating Case No. dated removing
corresponding Date of No. 10/2003 dated Disciplinary 6/2013 U/s. 21.04.2017 workmen
WP(L) No. Award in filed on 04.08.2009 in Proceeding 33-A filed passed in from their
Reference 23.04.2003 Form-H under against on Complaint services
No.58/1992 by Thekedar Rule 58 workmen 11.02.2013 Case No. issued on
Mazdoor between 06/2013 07.09.2017
Union Thekedar during
representing Mazdoor pendency of
Workmen Union & L.C.
Management Application (Common
of CCL No. 10/2003 in all cases,
(Common (Common in (Common except LPA
in all cases) all cases) (Common in all cases) 524/2022)
in all cases)
1. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 16.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
5778/2018
2. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
5752/2018
3. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
3072/2019
4. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1166/2018
5. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7699/2017
6. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
5777/2018
7. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7463/2017
8. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1704/2019
9. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
434/2020
10. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 21.05.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
6739/2017
11. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7584/2017
12. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
2872/2018
13. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7569/2017
14. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7547/2017
15. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7723/2017
16. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 21.05.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
5780/2018
17. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 21.05.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1174/2018
18. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7741/2017
19. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
2576/2018
20. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1165/2018
21. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7753/2017
22. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- 14.09.2017
524/2022 03.10.1996 Not Served 12 15 Annexure-
1474/2018
23. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 10.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1159/2018
24. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7598/2017
25. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7522/2017
26. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
2569/2018
27. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-10 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7349/2017
28. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-9 Annexure-6 16.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7520/2017
29. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1168/2018
30. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
5774/2018
31. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 11.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1170/2018
32. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-11 Annexure-6 11.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7548/2017
33. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1706/2019
34. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-10 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7298/2017
35. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1697/2019
36. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1162/2018
37. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-10 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
7300/2017
38. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 05.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
1698/2019
39. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 06.06.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
2399/2018
40. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-10 Annexure-6 Charge-Sheet Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
6685/2017
41. LPA 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 16.04.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
WP(L)
2575/2018
42. LPA 52/2023 29.07.1992 Annexure-12 Annexure-6 21.05.2012 Annexure- Annexure- Annexure-
1705/2019
43. LPA 29.07.1992 L.C. Annexure-2 Annexure-4 Annexure-5 Annexure-6 Annexure-7
552/2022 03.10.1996 Application -series
WP(L) Annexure-1 not filed 16.4.2012 &
7495/2017 23.2.2012 (A1)
(4 ------------- (A2)
Appellants) 11.4.2012 (A3)
10.4.2012 (A4)
44. LPA 29.07.1992 L.C. Annexure-2 Charge-Sheet Annexure-5 Annexure-6 Annexure-7
576/2022 03.10.1996 Application Not Served
WP(L) Annexure-1 not filed
7427/2017
(3
Appellants)
6. From perusal of the aforesaid chart, it is apparent that in some of
the writ petitions, the charge-sheets were not served/issued to the
concerned workmen but notice terminating their service were issued as
a consequence of the award impugned in the writ petitions.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has furnished a chart
which gives some details in connection with the present litigation: -
1. Number of workmen who were 142 workmen were
identified and taken into absorbed/appointed, out of
employment by the CCL pursuant which 134 joined.
to a direction in W.P.(C). No.2795
of 2002 and the settlement entered
into between the parties.
2. Number of workmen who 54 workmen.
approached the writ Court.
3. Number of workmen who have No one approached the
approached the Tribunal after the Tribunal after the Award, dt
Award dated 21st April 2017 - 21.04.2017. [To the best of
knowledge]
4. Description of criminal cases filed No workmen in the present
by the workmen on an allegation of batch matters have filed any
impersonation by some of the criminal case, nor anyone is
workmen who have been taken in facing any criminal
service in the year 2013. prosecution. [To the best of
knowledge]
5. Any other civil proceeding 13 workmen from the
between the parties. present batch have moved
before the Civil Court of
Tenughat, and Original Suits
have been instituted, seeking
declaration that they are the
same persons bearing their
respective names, as appear
in the Award of Ref. Case
No.58/92, at respective
serial numbers.
6. No. of workmen who had filed 59
Complaint Case No.6 of 2013
before the Industrial Tribunal
7. No. of charge-sheeted workmen 36
8. No of workmen who have filed 45
these Letters Patent Appeals.
Arguments of the Appellants
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the only question which falls for consideration before this Court is:
whether on an application filed by the workman under section 33-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal could
have passed an order for removal of the workmen during pendency of
the departmental proceeding against them?
9. As per the arguments referring to the written submissions
furnished by the appellants, they have taken following grounds:
(i) "For that in the application of workman, against the
service of charge-sheet, they have been directed to be
removed.
(ii) Section 33-A of the Act of 1947, prescribes first stage as
inspection into the issue of change in service condition, that
is, if there is any violation of service conditions during the
pendency of any matter before the Industrial Tribunal, as
per the provisions of section 33, then only in the second
stage, further adjudication in the matter is possible under
section 33-A.
(iii) The Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an
order to remove any of the employees; there is provision to
adjudicate the matter, in case, the Industrial Tribunal is
satisfied that there is violation of conditions referred to
under section 33 of Act of 1947, then only the matter will
be adjudicated, as if dispute over it has been raised and
referred to the Industrial Tribunal, under the Act.
However, there is no provision in the Act of 1947,
which affords any power or jurisdiction to the Industrial
Tribunal to pass direction upon the respondents to dismiss
the employees.
(iv) The respondents in their written statement before the
Industrial Tribunal, as also in their submission before the
Hon'ble Single Bench has admitted that application under
section 33-A of the Act of 1947 was not maintainable.
(v) The allegation of impersonation was levelled, for which
charge sheets were being issued to different employees, but
in the meantime the Industrial Tribunal passed the order to
remove all the employees on invocation of section 33-A. In
some cases, even charge sheets were not issued.
(vi) The Memo of Settlement, entered into Statutory Form H, as
per Rule 56 of the Act of 1947, prescribes the process of
identification and appointment, for compliance of the
Award of Ref. 58/1992. It has nothing to do with fraud, and
there is no reason recorded in the impugned Award as to
how element of fraud is attracted in the drawing of the
settlement. As far as the charge of impersonation is
concerned that was under investigation as per the
provisions charge-sheet served."
Arguments of the Respondents
10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent -
management that there is no illegality or perversity in the order
impugned passed by the Industrial Tribunal and also the judgment
passed by the learned writ Court dismissing the writ petitions. Many
workmen who claim to be beneficiary of the Award and the
Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) were of tender age and minor at
the relevant point of time and, accordingly, the workmen have obtained
employment through fraud and impersonation for which charge sheets
were issued to them under the standing orders and, therefore, direction
issued by the Industrial Tribunal to remove such workmen appointed
pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) pending enquiry
does not call for any interference.
11. Points for Consideration
Having held that issuance of charge-sheet to workmen did not
amount to change in service conditions -
Whether the learned Industrial Tribunal could have proceeded
further in the complaint filed under section 33-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to question the legality and validity of
Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) as well as the appointments
made pursuant thereto followed by a direction upon the management
to terminate all such appointments pending enquiry?
Whether the Industrial Tribunal having held that issuance of
charge-sheet to workmen did not amount to change in service
conditions, ought to have left it for the management to proceed and
conclude the enquiry with respect to those to whom charge-sheets
under the standing orders of the management were already issued?
Findings of this Court
Provisions of law
12. Before proceeding further, the provision of sections 31, 33 and
33-A of the Act of 1947 are required to be examined in the light of the
various judicial pronouncements. The sections are quoted as under: -
"31. Penalty for other offences-(1) Any employer who contravenes the
provisions of section 33 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rule
made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or
under this Act for such contravention, be punishable with fine which may
extend to one hundred rupees.
33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain
circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-
(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a
conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before [an arbitrator
or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an
industrial dispute, no employer shall-
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the
prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of
service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of
such proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or
punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned
in such dispute,
save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which
the proceeding is pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an
industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing
orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute [or, where
there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the
contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman]--
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute,
the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately
before the commencement of such proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge
or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed,
unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has
been made by the employer to the authority before which the
proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the
employer.
33-A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of
service, etc., changed during pendency of proceedings.--
Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the
pendency of proceedings [before a conciliation officer, Board, an
arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], any employee
aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, [in the
prescribed manner, --
(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer
or Board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and
promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and
(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal
and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall adjudicate
upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending
before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall
submit his or its award to the appropriate Government and the
provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.]
13. Section 33(1) deals with alternation of service condition or
discharge or punishment of any workman with regard to matters
connected with the dispute pending before the Tribunal. Section 33 (2)
deals with matters which are not connected with pending dispute before
the Tribunal.
14. With regard to any matter connected with any dispute pending
before the Tribunal, section 33(1)(a) provides that no employer shall
alter the conditions of service to the prejudice of the workmen
concerned, save with the express permission in writing before whom
such proceeding is pending. With regard to any matter not connected
with the pending dispute before the Tribunal, section 33(2) (a) provides
that the employer may alter the conditions of service of workmen in
accordance with the standing orders/terms of contract applicable to the
workmen.
15. With regard to any matter connected with the dispute pending
before the Tribunal, section 33(1)(b) provides that no employer shall
discharge or punish any workmen for any misconduct, save with the
express permission in writing of the authority before which such
proceeding is pending.
16. With regard to any matter not connected with the pending dispute
before the Tribunal, section 33(2)(b) provides that the employer may
discharge or punish a workman in accordance with the standing
orders/terms of contract for any misconduct not connected with the
dispute provided he has been paid wages of one month and an
application has been made by the employer to the authority before
whom the proceeding is pending, for approval of the action taken by the
employer.
17. In "The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited,
Saharanpur Vs. Govind" AIR 1962 SC 1500, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the provisions of section 33 of the Act of 1947 and
held that on a plain reading of the proviso to section 33, it is clear that
it gives the employer the power to discharge or dismiss the employee
before obtaining approval of the Tribunal concerned, but at the same
time the protection afforded to the employee by the proviso has to
remain effective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the use of the
word "approval" in the proviso suggested that something has been done
by the employer who seeks approval of that from the Tribunal. While
considering the point as to when an application should be made by the
employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 9 of the report
held that section 33-A of the Act gives a right to the employee to apply
for redressal in case an employer contravenes the provision under
section 33 and there is no dispute that the proviso to section 33(2)(b)
should be so interpreted as not to whittle down the protection provided
by section 33-A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the proviso
and held that it contemplates three things mentioned therein namely, (i)
dismissal or discharge, (ii) payment of the wages, and (iii) making of
an application for approval, to be simultaneous and to be part of the
same transaction, so that the employer when he takes the action under
section 33(2) by dismissing or discharging an employee, should
immediately pay him or offer to pay him wages for one month and also
make an application to the Tribunal for approval at the same time. It has
been held that the question whether the application was made as a part
of the same transaction or at the same time when the action was taken
would be a question of fact and will depend upon the circumstances of
each case.
18. In Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal
Sharma, (2002) 2 SCC 244, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the
occasion to deal with the provision of section 33 of the Act of 1947. In
the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the object,
purpose and nature of amendment in the said section in the year 1956.
Paragraph no. 6 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: -
"6. Answer to the question on which conflicting decisions are
rendered, as noticed above, depends on a fair reading and proper
interpretation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Prior to the
amendment of 1956, the provision contained in Section 33
corresponded to the present Section 33(1) only. The object behind
enacting Section 33, as it stood before it was amended in 1956,
was to allow continuance of industrial proceedings pending
before any authority/court/tribunal prescribed by the Act in a
peaceful atmosphere undisturbed by any other industrial dispute.
In course of time, it was felt that unamended Section 33 was too
stringent for it placed a total ban on the right of the employer to
make any alteration in conditions of service or to make any order
of discharge or dismissal even in cases where such alteration in
conditions of service or passing of an order of dismissal or
discharge, was not in any manner connected with the dispute
pending before an industrial authority. It appears, therefore, that
Section 33 was amended in 1956 permitting the employer to make
changes in conditions of service or to discharge or dismiss an
employee in relation to matters not connected with the pending
industrial dispute. At the same time, it seems to have been felt that
there was need to provide some safeguards for a workman who
may be discharged or dismissed during the pendency of a dispute
on account of some matter unconnected with the dispute. This
position is clear by reading the redrafted expanded Section 33 in
1956 containing five sub-sections........"(emphasis supplied)
19. The proviso to amended section 33(2)(b) has been explained in
paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment as under:
"7. The proviso expressly and specifically states that no workman
shall be discharged or dismissed unless he has been paid wages
for one month and an application has been made by the employer
to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for
approval of the action taken by the employer. It is clear from the
proviso to Section 33(2)(b) that the employer may pass an order
of dismissal or discharge and at the same time make an
application for approval of the action taken by him.
8. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of P.H. Kalyani
v. Air France, Calcutta referring to Strawboard has observed
thus:
"4. The main point which was raised in this appeal is now
concluded by the decision of this Court in Straw Board Mfg.
Co. Ltd. v. Govind. This Court has held in that case that-
'the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) contemplates the three
things mentioned therein, namely, (i) dismissal or
discharge, (ii) payment of wages, and (iii) making of an
application for approval, to be simultaneous and to be
part of the same transaction so that the employer when
he takes the action under Section 33(2) by dismissing or
discharging an employee, should immediately pay him
or offer to pay him wages for one month and also make
an application to the tribunal for approval at the same
time'.
...................................."
20. It has been held in "Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Another Vs. Satya Prakash" (2013) 9 SCC 232 that
section 33-A has a definite purpose to serve i.e. to provide a direct
access to the Tribunal and thereby a speedy relief, instead of seeking
the time-consuming procedure of seeking a reference under section 10
of the Act. In the complaint under section 33-A, however, the employee
will succeed only if he establishes that the misconduct is not proved and
not otherwise. Thus, in that complaint the employee will have to prove
his case on merits. If he does succeed in so establishing, it will relate
back to the date on which the dismissal order was passed by the
employer as if it was inoperative. This remedy is independent of the
penal consequences which the employer may have to face under section
31(1) of the Act if prosecuted for the breach of section 33 of the Act of
1947. In Satya Prakash (Supra), the appellant i.e. the employer had not
applied for necessary approval as required by proviso to section
33(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the complaint was filed under
section 33-A of the Act. It has been held that the complaint having been
adjudicated like a reference, as required by section 33-A, and the
misconduct was proved, then there was no question to hold that the
termination shall still continue to be void and inoperative. The finding
will relate back and de jure relationship of the employer and employee
will come to an end with effect from the date of dismissal passed by the
employer.
21. In the judgment in "Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited
Vs. S. Balakrishnan" (2016) 12 SCC 221, the law has been
summarized in paragraph 10 as under:
"10. Section 33-A of the Act enjoins upon the industrial
adjudicator a twin duty. The first is to find out as to whether the
employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 [in the
present case by not filing an application seeking approval under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act]. However, a finding on the above
question would not be conclusive of the matter and the industrial
adjudicator is required to answer the further question as to
whether the dismissal or such other punishment as may have been
imposed on the workman is justified in law. The issue of
sustainability of the punishment imposed naturally has to be
decided within the contours of the reference jurisdiction as
indicated above. That Section 33-A of the Act enjoins upon the
industrial adjudicator the aforesaid twin duties is once again
clear from a recent pronouncement of this Court in Rajasthan
SRTC v. Satya Prakash, SCC para 23 wherein this Court had the
occasion to consider the long line of decisions taking the said
view eventually culminating in what had been recorded in para
23 of the decision in Rajasthan SRTC [Rajasthan SRTC v. Satya
Prakash, (2013) 9 SCC 232] which is to the following effect -
"23. In the present case, the Tribunal accepted that
during this very short span of service as a daily wager
the respondent had committed the misconduct which had
been duly proved. Having held so, the Tribunal was
expected to dismiss the complaint filed by the
respondent. It could not have passed the order of
reinstatement with continuity in service in favour of the
respondent on the basis that initially the appellant had
committed a breach of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. It is
true that the appellant had not applied for the necessary
approval as required under that section. That is why the
complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 33-
A of the Act. That complaint having been filed, it was
adjudicated like a reference as required by the statute.
The same having been done, and the misconduct having
been held to have been proved, now there is no question
to hold that the termination shall still continue to be void
and inoperative. The de jure relationship of employer
and employee would come to an end with effect from the
date of the order of dismissal passed by the appellant. In
the facts of the present case, when the respondent had
indulged in a misconduct within a very short span of
service which had been duly proved, there was no
occasion to pass the award of reinstatement with
continuity in service. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court as well as the Division Bench have fallen in
the same error in upholding the order of the Tribunal."
22. It is thus clear from the aforesaid judgments that the employer is
entitled to discharge or dismiss an employee in relation to matters not
connected with the pending industrial dispute, provided that the
workman has been paid wages for one month and an application has
been made by the employer to the authority before whom the
proceeding is pending, for approval of the action taken by the employer.
It is also clear that the approval is required after dismissal or removal.
The employer may pass an order of dismissal or discharge and at the
same time make an application for approval of the action taken by him.
It is also clear from the aforesaid judgments that the order of dismissal
cannot be set-aside on mere non-compliance of the provision of
section 33 of the Act of 1947 but the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
has to decide the case as if it was a reference under section 10 of the
Act of 1947.
23. The present case arises out of the plea raised by the workmen
before the Industrial Tribunal that issuance of charge-sheet amounts to
change in service conditions of the workmen while a non-related
dispute regarding claim of wages under section 33-C(2) was pending
before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, neither the provisions of
section 33(1)(b) nor the provisions of section 33(2)(b) are attracted.
24. So far as section 33(1)(a) or section 33(2)(a) are concerned, they
apply only when the employer alters the conditions of service of
workmen while a connected or an unconnected industrial dispute is
pending before the Industrial Tribunal. When there is no alteration in
service condition there is no applicability of section 33(1)(a) or section
33(2)(a). In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded a
finding that there is no change of service condition by issuance of
charge-sheet alleging misconduct in terms of standing order. On
account of such finding, section 33(1)(a) or section 33(2)(a) are also not
attracted.
The Award of the Industrial Tribunal
25. The specific case of the workmen, while filing their complaint
under section 33-A of the Act of 1947 was that the management had
started disciplinary proceedings against them by issuing charge sheets
without prior permission of the Industrial Tribunal (before whom L.C.
Application No. 10 of 2003 was pending) and it was alleged that
issuance of charge-sheets amounted to change of service conditions of
the workmen during pendency of industrial dispute. Consequently, the
workmen had also prayed before the Industrial Tribunal to quash the
charge-sheets and direct the management not to proceed with the
enquiry and not to dismiss the workmen from service during the
pendency of the case.
26. The Industrial Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding at
paragraph no. 9 of the Award that the issuance of charge-sheets for
commission of misconduct was not change of service condition of an
employee. This finding is not under dispute by either party. On the face
of such finding neither section 33(1)(a) nor section 33(2)(a) of the Act
of 1947, is attracted.
27. So far as section 33(1)(b) or section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947
are concerned, they are not at all attracted in the present cases as the
cause of action for filing the complaint case under section 33-A was
issuance of charge-sheets and not dismissal of any workman.
28. Thus, there has been no contravention of section 33 of the Act of
1947 and, accordingly, there was no occasion for the Industrial Tribunal
to proceed further with the complaint filed under section 33-A of the
Act of 1947 as the condition precedent to attract section 33-A (i.e.
contravention of the provision of section 33 of the Act of 1947 by the
employer) was not satisfied.
29. The Industrial Tribunal having held as aforesaid, ought to have
dismissed the complaint under section 33-A of the Act of 1947 and
ought to have allowed the CCL to take the disciplinary proceedings, for
which charge-sheets were issued, to a logical end in accordance with
the standing order. The Industrial Tribunal ought not to have proceeded
further by entering into or commenting upon the legality and validity of
the Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) and by recording that there was
mala fide in giving appointment to the workmen and consequently,
directing the management to remove all the workmen who were
employed on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) pending
enquiry. Such findings/comments have serious implications on the
pending enquiry and affect even the persons who have been genuinely
appointed and to whom no charge-sheet was issued. Further, from
perusal of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, it appears that
the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to the spot to hear the matter and also
took evidence, but the order does not reflect any discussion of any
evidence and by one stroke of pen the Industrial Tribunal has directed
the management to remove all the workmen who were employed on the
basis of Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) pending enquiry and then
rejected the application filed under section 33-A of the Act of 1947.
30. The Industrial Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in
proceeding further with the complaint case and recording further
findings/observations even after having found that issuance of charge-
sheets did not amount to change in service condition in the present
cases. These observations have serious bearing on the pending enquiry.
The order of the learned writ Court
31. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned
writ Court, this Court finds that the writ petitioners had challenged the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to direct the CCL to terminate the
services of the workmen by highlighting that even the management had
stated before the Industrial Tribunal that the petition under
section 33-A of Act of 1947 was not maintainable. However, the
learned writ Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that since
the Industrial Tribunal was in the process of identifying the correct
persons pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, the
management had rightly issued charge-sheets and the management had
every right to examine the authenticity and impersonation of the
persons. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is quoted as
under: -
"Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the
parties and looking into facts and circumstances, since the
learned Tribunal was in process of identifying the correct
persons pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in
Reference No.58 of 1992, 18 persons have been given
employment in the process and subsequently the correct
persons have approached the Management and Management
after prima facie found that there is impersonation and a
charge-sheet has been issued to examine the authenticity of
the workmen.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Management has
rightly issued the charge-sheet. The Management has every
right to examine the authenticity and impersonation of the
persons, accordingly the charge-sheet remains intact and the
management shall proceed in accordance with law.
All the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
All pending I.As. stand closed."
32. The observation of the Industrial Tribunal that the Memorandum
of Settlement (MOS) was not legal and valid and that it was not entered
with clean hands and was an outcome of ingenuine and fraudulent act;
further observation that impersonation was seen prima facie and
consequent direction upon the management to remove all the workmen
who were employed on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement (MOS)
pending enquiry are findings/observations beyond the jurisdiction of
the Industrial Tribunal conferred by law in terms of section 33-A of the
Act of 1947. Such findings/observations were required to be set aside
by the learned writ Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned writ Court has failed to consider the
aforesaid aspects of the matter while dismissing the writ petitions.
Consequently, the judgment passed by the learned writ Court cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law, which is accordingly set aside.
33. Consequently, the findings/observations recorded by the
Industrial Tribunal to the aforesaid extent are hereby quashed and set-
aside. The findings by the Industrial Tribunal that issuance of charge-
sheets for commission of misconduct did not amount to change of
service condition of the workmen and the ultimate order dismissing the
Complaint Case No. 6 of 2013 by Award dated 21.04.2017 do not
require any interference in absence of a cross-appeal or any argument
on behalf of the CCL.
34. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, all the letters of
termination which had been issued to the workmen as a consequence of
the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal contained in the Award
dated 21.04.2017 are also quashed.
35. However, charge-sheets in terms of the standing order having
been issued to the workmen in connection with the allegation of
employment by impersonation are required to be taken to a logical end.
It is not in dispute that the departmental enquiry remained pending and
the same could not be taken to a logical end in view of the Award
dated 21.04.2017 which was followed by the order of removal of the
writ petitioners vide notices dated 07.09.2017/14.09.2017.
36. Accordingly, the management is at liberty to proceed with the
charge-sheet issued to one or the other workman for alleged misconduct
in accordance with law. The concerned workmen/legal representative
of the deceased workmen who are the appellants before this Court to
appear before the respondent no.2 on 11.10.2023. Upon their
appearance, the CCL shall proceed in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders in terms of the standing order latest by 30.04.2024.
37. These Letters Patent Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
38. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
I Agree.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/ Pankaj
