Burdwan, West Bengal v. 1.Union of India 2. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Water Board Colony, Hirapur, P.O. +
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 4004 of 2009 Eastern Coalfields Limited through its Shree Jaswindra Pal Singh Chief General Manager, Pandavaswar Area, ECL, S/o Jogindar Singh Rattan, Resident of Pandavaswar, P.O. and P.S. Pandvaswar, District :- Burdwan, West Bengal Petitioner … … Versus 1.Union of India 2. Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Water Board Colony, Hirapur, P.O. + P.S. , Hirapur, Dist. Dhanbad through its Secretary 3. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad,-1 … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate --- 19/17.05.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the award dated 29.08.2006 passed in reference case No. 137 of 1991 is inoperative and cannot be implemented. further writ AND A to quash the show cause notice dated 24/29.07.2009 issued by the concerned respondents directing the petitioner the implemented the said award and further writ directing the concerned respondents not to take in coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 24/29.07.2009 issued to the petitioner. AND During the pendency of this writ application no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner or their employees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an award dated 29.08.2006 was passed in Reference Case No. 137 of 1991 and as per the award, strict time line was granted to all the concerned persons to submit their documents in support of their claim that they were workmen in the concerned colliery area. The documents were to be filed through the sponsoring Union within 60 days from the date of publication of the award. There was a clear stipulation that in no case, period will be extended beyond 60 days and if any such documents were filed beyond the prescribed period, they will not be considered. 4. The learned counsel submits that the date of publication of the award is 08.09.2006 (Annexure-2) and the respondents have issued notice dated 04.06.2007 (Annexure-6) regarding implementation of the award. He has referred to Annexure-10 dated 24/29.07.2009 2 stating that a show cause notice was issued to the Management as to why legal action under Section 29 read with 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act be non-taken on account of non- implementation of the award. 5. The petitioner filed their show cause dated 08.08.2009 (annexure-11) stating that no proforma from any of 397 persons as mandatorily directed by the learned Tribunal was submitted to the petitioner within the stipulated time frame. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that there was a stay order passed by this Court and consequently the respondents have not filed any case under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel submits that the award is not executable on account of failure to adhere to the time line as given in the award itself. 7. Learned counsel appearing behalf of respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that on the face of Annexure-2 the date of notification is mentioned at the top as 07.10.2006. He has further submitted that Gazette Notification has also been annexed with the counter affidavit indicating the date of publication of the award as 07.10.2006. The learned counsel has submitted that claim was filed in terms of the award. He further submits that a specific statement has been made at para 10 of the counter affidavit that Union has submitted a letter dated 14.10.2006 for implementation of the award and on 06.12.2006 submitted the list of workmen with the required details which was duly received in the office of the petitioner on 06.12.2006. It is submitted that the claim was lodged within the stipulated time from the date of publication of the award. 8. In response, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-4 of the writ petition which was issued by an Advocate namely B.N. Singh, who claimed to be the office bearer of the Union and in paragraph 5 of the representation dated 18.11.2006, the said Advocate had informed that till date, no existent workmen and no real dependent of non-existing workmen had turned up before him in terms of the award to get his name sponsored for employment etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon para 15 and 17 of the rejoinder to dispute the date of submission of documents by the 3 sponsoring union and has submitted that no supporting document has been filed by the respondent no.2. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the award dated 29.08.2006, having strict time line, was published on 07.10.2006. From the arguments of the parties it appears that there is a dispute as to whether the respondent No. 2 had taken steps in terms of the award or not. It further appears that the respondent Ministry of Labour, Government of India had issued a letter dated 24/29.07.2009 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why legal action under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act be not taken for non-implementation of the award to which the petitioner had filed a reply as contained in Annexure-11 stating that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal upon the respondent union has not been complied. 10. It appears that in the meantime, interim order dated 10.12.2009 was passed by this court and the respondents have not proceeded further regarding the show cause issued to the petitioner during the pendency of this case. 11. Considering the dispute as to whether the respondent No. 2 had complied with the time line as prescribed in the award or not , this court finds that the petitioner has filed his show cause to the notice dated 24/29.07.2009 and therefore an appropriate order is required to be passed by the Authority upon considering the reply to show cause filed by the petitioner. Since the rights of the respondent No. 2 is involved in the present case, therefore the respondent No. 2 is also required to be heard while disposal of the show cause reply filed by the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when there is a dispute as to whether the parties have acted in terms of the award or not , this court is of the considered view that no declaration as prayed for by the petitioner can be made by this court at this stage as to whether the award dated 29.08.2006, passed in Reference Case No. 137 of 1991, is inoperative or not and whether it can be implemented or not. However, the reply to the show cause submitted by the 4 petitioner is certainly required to be taken care of and appropriate order is required to be passed . 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central Dhanbad-I to consider the show cause reply filed by the petitioner as back as on 08.08.2009 and pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 shall appear before the respondent No. 3 on 13.06.2023 at 11.00 a.m. Upon their appearance, the respondent No. 3 shall consider the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and also the points to be raised by the respondent No. 2 before the said Authority and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 shall pass a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 at their respective address to be
Decision
provided to the respondent no.3. 14. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)