Jharkhand High Court
Workmen Pure Benedih Colliery Of Area ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 19 November, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 4579 of 2021
Workmen Pure Benedih Colliery of Area No.1 of Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, Dhanbad P.S. Saraidhela Post Ofifce Koyalanagar, District
Dhanbad Jharkhand through its authorized Representative Mohan
Kishore Mishra Son of Late Badri Nath Mishra Care of P.K.S.
Choudhury Advocate of L.R.D.C. office Verandah, Civil Court
Dhanbad Jharkhand 826001. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour &
Employment Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, P.S +P.O - Sansad
Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Coal Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Pd.
Road, P.O+ P.S- Central Secretariat, New Delhi
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Koyala Bhawan, P.O + P.S. -Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad 826005
4. The Director (Personnel) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. P.O+ P.S. Koyala
Nagar, Koyala Bhawan, Koyala Nagar Dhanbad 826005
5. The General Manager (Personnel) (IR) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Koyala Bhawan, P.O+P.S- Bazhamara, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad
826005
6. The General Manager Barora Area I, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Dumra
More, Baghmara, P.O + P.S- Bazhamara, Dhanbad.
7. The Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Labour Ministry Shram Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O+P.S-Sansad Mang, New Delhi.
8. The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Shram Bhawan, Jagjiwan
Nagar, P.O+P.S- Saraidheh, Dhanbad 826005 Jharkhand.
9. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad office of the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Shram Bhawan,
Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad Jharkhand
10. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) Shram Bhawan, PO: +PS -
Saraidheh, Jagjiwan Nagar, Dhanbad 826005 Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subro Senyal, Advocate
: Mrs. Abha Verma, Advocate
For the Resp. 1 & 2 and 7 to 10 : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC
For the Resp. 3 to 6 : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
---
14/19.11.2024
1. Heard Mr. Subro Senyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner through video conferencing and Ms. Abha Verma
who is present in the Court.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
3. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and 7 to 10.
4. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"With prayer to issue a writ of and or in the nature of writ of
certiorari quashing and or cancelling the letter dated 09.12.2020
(Annexure-75) issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central) Dhanbad (respondent No 9 herein) by which Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad (respondent No 9
herein) refused to recognize the settlement dated 16.03.1972 by
and between the workmen and Management of the Colliery;
further the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of and or in the
nature of mandamus commanding and or directing the
respondents to re-employ the workman without any further
delay; as also the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of and
or in the nature of mandamus commanding and or directing the
respondents to initiate prosecution before CJM, Dhanbad under
Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 against the erring
respondents."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad and the
authorities under him had refused to recognize the settlement dated
16.03.1972 which was entered into between the workmen and the
management of colliery and have refused to refer the dispute for
adjudication by the impugned order dated 09.12.2020.
6. The learned counsel submits that the settlement has been
annexed as Annexure-2 which has been filed along with
supplementary affidavit dated 15.05.2023 and as per the settlement,
the management had agreed to re-employee the workers as per the list
enclosed after the reopening of the collieries. The learned counsel
submits that the settlement dated 16th March, 1972 was with the then
colliery owner and the settlement is binding on the respondent BCCL
who are successor in interest (under whom the mines have vested by
the operation of law).
7. During the course of argument, it could not be disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the so-called settlement by
which a number of workmen were to be re-employed and was entered
as back as on 16.03.1972, all of them either might have attained the
age of superannuation or they might not be alive. The learned counsel
is not aware about the present status of the workmen involved in the
settlement and upon a further query the list of workmen does not find
place in the writ records.
8. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a
judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1296 of 2002 dated
19.02.2002 and has submitted that when the settlement was not being
enforced, notices were issued for launching prosecution under Section
29 of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 and this Court refused to
interfere with those notices. He submits that he is not aware as to what
ultimately happened to the show cause notices. He has also submitted
that once the show cause notices were issued, the same was required
to be taken to a logical end when this Court had refused to interfere
with the show cause notices.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
while opposing the prayer has submitted that they were altogether 166
workmen involved and there can be no doubt that they might have
either attained the age of superannuation or may not be alive after 52
years from 16.03.1972. He has also submitted that the workmen
claimed that they were already working in the colliery and they were
to be re-employed meaning thereby that they were already in
employment for some period of time. The learned counsel has further
submitted that as per the impugned order the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) had refused to refer the dispute for
adjudication and the conciliation has failed.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the
order dated 29.01.2014 passed by Government of India, Ministry of
Labour wherein the claim for re-employment was held to be a belated
claim as more than 40 years had passed from the date of
nationalization of colliery.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner is seeking to enforce the so called
settlement dated 16.03.1972 by and between the workmen and the
management of the then colliery, the present respondent is successor
in interest by virtue of the aforesaid act of Coal Mines
(Nationalization) Act, 1973.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order dated 19.12.2020 does not
call for any interference and is further of the view that no relief in
terms of the so called settlement dated 16.03.1972 can be granted to
one or the other workman.
13. However, in case any prosecution has been initiated under
Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 the final outcome of
the same has not been brought on record. However, if such a
prosecution is still pending the same is certainly required to be taken
to a logical end.
14. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
