1. Kartik Mahto aged about 81 years son of Late Fagu Mahto 2. Upendra v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., a Central Government Public Sector undertaking, having its registered
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 556 of 2019 1. Kartik Mahto aged about 81 years son of Late Fagu Mahto 2. Upendra Jha aged about 81 years, son of Late Daniya Lal 3. Narayan Ram aged about 80 years, son of Heman Mahto, resident of Village-Digwar, PO+PS-Mandu, District-Ramgarh ...… Appellants Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd., a Central Government Public Sector undertaking, having its registered office and having one if its units at Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Earlier known as M/s Bharat Refractories Ltd. Ranchi Road, Refractories Plant, PO-Marar, District-Hazaribag) now Ramgarh through its General Manager (P&R), SAIL Refractories Ltd., Bokaro Steel City, namely, Shri Bhuwan Tripathy, s/o late G.A Tripathy, resident of Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro .…Respondent --------------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants For the SAIL : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate ---------------
Decision
O R D E R 28th June 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The workmen have challenged the order dated 16th July 2019 passed in W.P(L) No.6412 of 2012 filed by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short, “SAIL”) which has been allowed and the Award dated 9th April 2011 has been set aside by the writ Court. 2. The writ Court has held as under: “Be that as it may, it is admitted fact of the parties that all the above workmen had worked till the date of compulsory superannuation and thereafter, they got their wages. Mr. Upendra Jha superannuated in December, 1994, Narayan Mahto superannuated in January, 1985 and Kartik Mahto superannuated in December, 1998. Thus, all the employees had rendered their entire services and got their wages. It is trite that the benefit of scheme has to be provided strictly in accordance with the parameters of the scheme. The scheme, invoked in the present dispute for giving appointment to the dependent is applicable if employee has been terminated on the ground of medically unfitness. In the present case, since employees had been allowed to work and in fact they had worked till the date of superannuation and got wages also, I am of the view that dependent of the concerned 2 L.P.A No.556 of 2019 workmen are not entitled for appointment. Further, this scheme is by way of exception and this cannot be mode of recruitment. Otherwise, it is against the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the Labour Court has made fundamental mistake by directing the employer to give appointment to the dependent of the concerned workmen ignoring the fact that the concerned workmen had worked till the age of superannuation and got wages also. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the Award dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in Reference Case No.1 of 2002 is, hereby, quashed.” 3. The writ Court has held that the workmen have continued to work till the date of superannuation and received their wages and therefore their dependents were not entitled for employment. This finding of the writ Court has been challenged by Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the learned counsel for the workmen on the ground that the action of the Management has been found illegal and therefore the Labour Court at Hazaribag has rightly ordered employment for the dependents of the workmen, namely, Upendra Jha, Narayan Ram and Kartik Mahto. It is further submitted that the workmen were declared medically unfit is not under dispute and there was a scheme under which the dependents are entitled for employment is also an admitted fact and while so, no interference was warranted with the Award dated 9th April 2011 made in Reference Case No.1 of 2002. 4. By a reference dated 1st March 2002 in exercise of powers under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government has made the following reference for adjudication by the Labour Court: “Whether the dependent of Upendra Jha, Narayan Mahto and Kartik Mahto all workers of M/s Bharat Refactories Ltd., Ranchi Road, PO Marar, Distt. Hazaribag after being declared unfit by the Medical Board are entitled to get employment?” 5. Briefly stated, a statement of demand dated 4th February 2000 on behalf of the workmen, namely, Upendra Jha, Narayan Ram, Kartik Mahto and Mahesh Giri was sent to the Additional General Manager in-charge of the SAIL. The Medical Board examined these workmen on 22nd May 1991 and declared them medically unfit. However, Upendra Jha, Narayan Ram and Kartik Mahto were forced to work and their demand for employment to their dependents was not accepted. These workmen have 3 L.P.A No.556 of 2019 pleaded that 37 other labourers who were declared medically unfit have been extended the benefit of the settlement under which their dependents were granted employment and Mahesh Giri who was examined together with these workmen on 22nd May 1991 has also received such benefit but these three workmen have been treated unfairly and forced to work. According to the workmen, there was a discussion with the Management to resolve the dispute but the Management did not agree to provide employment to the dependents of these three workmen. However, the Management has refuted these facts and pleaded that the concerned workmen were sent for treatment and they were never declared medically unfit and continued to work till they attained the age of superannuation. 6. The Labour Court took note of the evidence tendered by WW1 and MW1 and recorded a finding that there was an agreement between the Management and the Union for providing employment to the dependent son of the workmen who were found medically unfit. The Labour Court has held that though the reference was made after the workmen superannuated from service but what is relevant is that the dispute was raised before retirement of the workmen. However, the Labour Court has also recorded that the medical report dated 22nd May 1991 has not been produced on record and the Management has pleaded that the appellants were not keeping good health and therefore they were given medical treatment and found medically fit. 7. The Labour Court at Hazaribagh has held as under: “15. Now in consideration of the entire material i.e. the pleading and evidence, the management itself in the reply to the written statement has asserted and admitted some facts. It is admitted that there was an agreement between the management and the union regarding employment of the son who were found medically unfit (para 5). It is also admitted at para 7 that the employees, applicants of the case, were not keeping good health and they were given medical treatment and were found medically fit. It is stated earlier that the document pertaining to medical fitness or unfitness has deliberately been kept away from the court. The management fought tooth and nail in order not to produce the said document for reasons can be inferred. In the reference questioned it is an observation of the appropriate Government that the workmen are medically unfit. It is the assertion of the management that they are fit. It is an opinion of the Medical Board which is in a document and in order to assess, the document alone is relevant and admissible in the circumstances and this fact can not be decided on the basis of 4 L.P.A No.556 of 2019 oral evidence of whatever high standard it may be. On the other side of evidence the document were relevant also to show that the workmen were declared unfit and on the advice they were given specialized treatment. In order to consider this aspect also the document of Medical Board was relevant for the management to disprove the assertion of the workmen. But the management failed to show the document and considering the conduct adverse inference must be drawn against the management that the document was not favoring the management but was helping the workmen, thus it was kept back by the management. It also goes to show that the another workmen Maheshwar Giri was also declared unfit by the Board whose son has been appointed, thus the management also kept back this document from the sight of the Court so that the duel face of the management is not uncovered which may be attributed as illegal labour practice of the management. 16. In view of the above consideration it is no longer a point of dispute whether there was any such agreement between the management and the union regarding appointment of son of the workmen in his place, if the workmen is declared unfit. Thus non production of any such document by the workmen can also not be termed to be wrong and fatal for the workmen. In order to consider this aspect exhibit W/16 is also not be of much help only because the management itself admitted that there was such agreement, thus whether such agreement was for a particular period or it was not available at the time when the dispute was raised is no longer a point for jurisdiction. 17. The argument raised that when the reference was referred the workmen were not the workmen of the management is quite true. But considering the controversy raised, which was raised after the superannuation, as apparent from the evidence, the status of applicants/workmen will be treated from the date or period when the dispute was raised and in the circumstances the date of reference does not have relevancy to appreciate the argument. The management had admitted that applicants were screened by the Medical Board for their unfitness but it found them fit. The document shows that prior to the superannuation the workmen were raising the dispute that they have been declared unfit but their voice is not being heard. Their sons are not being given employment in their place. The dispute was raised prior to superannuation but since the management failed to keep their promise of agreement the workmen continued their work and ultimately superannuated. In such view of the matter the date of reference is immaterial to prove the relationship. Thus the argument that on the day of reference the workmen are not their workmen can not be upheld.” 8. The findings recorded by the Labour Court that the workmen were declared medically unfit and there is a scheme/settlement for providing employment to the dependent of the workmen has been declared medically unfit even though accepted, there is no evidence laid on behalf of the workmen to controvert the stand of the Management that on their own asking the workmen were sent for treatment. The Management has laid 5 L.P.A No.556 of 2019 evidence to the effect that Narayan Ram and Kartik Mahto were sent for specialized treatment at AIMS and Upendra Jha was treated at Amritsar and they were declared medically fit. Now in view of this evidence of MW1 the stand taken by the workmen that they were forced to work cannot be accepted. This is not in dispute that the workmen continued to perform their duty till they attained the age of superannuation, the reference was made after their superannuation and the Award has been made about 16 years after their retirement. No doubt the findings of fact recorded by the inferior Tribunal are not open to challenge in a proceeding for the writ of certiorari but an Award which is made contrary to the materials on record must be held perverse and therefore open to challenge in a writ proceeding. The inferior Tribunal/Court/Authority no doubt is the final adjudicator of facts but a finding of fact which is perverse, in other words, which is not based on legal evidence can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to find whether such questions of fact are based on the materials on record. 9. In “J.D. Jain v. State Bank of India” (1982) 1 SCC 143 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is perverse. ….” 10. Again in “P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar” (2001) 2 SCC 54 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed 6 L.P.A No.556 of 2019 Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan.” 11. The writ Court has rightly held that the Labour Court made a fundamental mistake by directing the employer to give appointment to the dependent of the concerned workmen ignoring the fact that the concerned workmen had worked till the age of superannuation and got wages also. 12. In view of the discussions made above, L.P.A No.556 of 2019 is dismissed. 13. I.A Nos.2242 of 2020 and 2478 of 2021 stand disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 28th June 2023 sudhir/N.A.F.R.