Jharkhand High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs The Presiding Officer on 25 November, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 2796 of 2001
Employers in relation to the Management of Kuchchi Balihari of M/s.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1,
Dhanbad & Anr. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate
For the Resp.-Workman : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Satyendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
34/25th November 2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this writ
petition the award has been challenged wherein a direction has been
issued for regularization of 18 workmen.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned award has been passed primarily by referring to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 (Air
India Statutory Corporation & Others vs. United Labour Union &
Others), but the said judgment has been overruled by the Constitutional
Bench judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. & Others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Others). He
submits that earlier the judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695 (Dena
Nath & Others vs. National Pertilisers Ltd. & Others) was overruled in
the judgment reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 (supra) and since the latter
judgment has been overruled by the judgment reported in the judgment
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 (supra), the judgment reported in (1992) 1
SCC 695 has revived.
4. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 264 (Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad vs.
Employers in relation to the Management of Kenduadih Colliery of
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others) and (2016) 9 SCC 431
(Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh vs. BCCL & Anr.).
5. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that it was the specific case of the workmen that they were
working in permanent and prohibited category of job of Tyndal at Kachi-
Balihari Colliery since long and for all purposes they were the employees
of the petitioner and they were performing the permanent nature of job in
connection with running of the mine. Their grievance was that though the
Management had carried out the Wage Board Recommendation wherein
there was a specific recommendation to place the Tyndal in Category-IV,
but these workmen were performing the same nature of work as others
[who were getting Category IV wages and designation of Tyndal] but they
were denied the same status as that of other workmen who were doing the
same nature of work. The payment of wages through different
intermediaries was nothing but a legal camouflage.
6. The learned counsel submits that in the written statement filed by
the Management, it was the specific case that there was no relationship of
employer and employee rather the concerned workmen were members of
a Co-operative Society and it was the Co-operative Society who had
employed these workmen for carrying out certain work. It was also
asserted that the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 does not prohibit employment of contract labour altogether but
it only regulates the employment of Contract Labour in certain
establishments and provides its abolition in certain circumstances which
would appear to be the ultimate object of the aforesaid Act of 1970. The
further case of the Management was that the concerned workmen were
never employed in the permanent and prohibited category of job of
Tyndal at any point of time. It was also asserted that the documents being
relied upon by them are fake and no relief could be granted to them on the
basis of such documents.
7. The learned counsel submits that it was for the respondents to bring
on record the notification regarding the work included in prohibited
category but no such notification was brought on record before the learned
court.
8. The learned counsel submits that aforesaid aspects of the matter
when seen in light of the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 would lead
to a conclusion that the impugned award is perverse and calls for
interference. He has also submitted that the impugned award having been
based on the judgment reported in (1997) 9 SCC 377 calls for interference
as it has been overruled in the judgment reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1. The
award in the present case has been passed on 19.02.2001.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has
opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned award does not
suffer from any perversity. He has also submitted that there is a clear
finding that the concerned workmen were interalia working as Tyndal. He
has also submitted that there is no denial by the petitioner in their written
statement that the work of Tyndal did not fall under the prohibited
category rather the case of the management was that the concerned
workmen were not working as Tyndal. He has relied upon the judgment
passed by this Court in LPA No. 426 of 2010 which has been upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2006. He has
further relied upon the judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 1578 of 2010 and
submits that the case of the respondents is squarely covered by these
judgments.
10. Since the aforesaid judgments have not been placed before this
Court during the course of hearing, post this case for further hearing
tomorrow i.e. 26.11.2024 at 2:15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
