Working President, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Gore Magnetite Project, Palamu, represented through Abdul Rahim v. 1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Director
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 86 of 2019 Working President, Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Gore Magnetite Project, Palamu, represented through Abdul Rahim Ansari, son of late Samtali Miyan, resident of village Sahdewa, PO Pandeypura, PS Patan, District Palamu ...… Petitioner Versus 1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Director (Personnel), Koyla Bhawan, PO and PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 2.The Project Manager, Gore Magnetite Project Mines, Rajhara Area, CCL, Daltenganj, PO Chainpur, PS Chainpur, District Palamu ..... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate : None --------- Order No. 04 /Dated: 11 th April 2023 This review petition was filed on 5th September 2019 with several defects. 2. It appears that inspite of two opportunities, one by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) and another by the learned Registrar General, the petitioner has failed to remove the defects as pointed out by the Registry. 3. The office-note dated 5th April 2023 indicates that deficit Court fee of Rs. 230/- has yet not been supplied by the petitioner. 4. The present petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 24th April 2015 passed in WP(L) No. 11 of 2011 by which this Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the appropriate Government under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the statement of fact recorded in the order dated 15th June 2010 by which the appropriate Government has declined to refer the dispute for adjudication is not correct inasmuch as several documents were produced on behalf of the workmen to show employer-employee relationship. 6. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had there been no document produced by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner the same would have been recorded in the failure report. 2 Civil Review No. 86 of 2019 7. Whether or not the petitioner has produced documentary evidence to prima-facie establish that a dispute has arisen which is required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal is a question of fact. In the present review petition, the petitioner has made reference of certificate of practical experience, pay-slip etc. However, there is no statement made by the petitioner that alongwith the application moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner he had produced the documents as referred to in paragraph no. 4 of the review petition. 8. This is also pertinent to indicate that out of about 2,200 workers the cause of the remaining 74 workmen who were not absorbed under M/s BCCL was espoused by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh. 9. While dismissing the WP(L) No. 11 of 2011, the writ Court has made the following observations: “6. From the materials produced on record, I find that in its reply before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in Reference No.1/7/2008/ALC-I, the Management of M/s. BCCL has taken a plea that it was not the owner of the Gore Magnetite Project rather, it was entrusted to M/s. CCL and subsequently, the entire project was closed in the year, 1991. It was specifically denied that the concerned workmen were employed with the Management of M/s. BCCL, at any point in time. The Appropriate Government has declined to refer the matter for adjudication on the ground that the Union failed to produce any documentary evidence. Since the dispute raised on behalf of the concerned workmen was disputed by M/s. BCCL stating that the concerned workmen were never employed with M/s. BCCL, it was required by the workmen to produce some evidence to prima-facie show that they were engaged by or on behalf of M/s. BCCL. The matter has been listed on 12 occasions and the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence, if any, submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner however, the petitioner has failed to produce any document except, few formats for Pay slip and casual leave which are for the year, 1978. Though, the function of Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is purely administrative but, it would not mean that without having been prima- facie satisfied with the dispute raised by a workman, the reference must be made automatically. In “Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others”, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 93, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 7. “The law on the point may briefly be summarised as follows: 1. The appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference under Section 10 of the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and if such a reference is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the Government to indicate the nature of dispute in the order of reference. 2. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act is an administrative order 3 Civil Review No. 86 of 2019 and not a judicial or quasijudicial one and the court, therefore, cannot canvass the order of the reference closely to see if there was any material before the Government to support its conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial order…………”. 8. I find no infirmity in order dated 15.06.2010 and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.” 10. It is a well accepted proposition in law that while exercising the review power the Court does not sit in appeal over the main order as an appellate authority. 11. In “Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others” (2000) 6 SCC 224 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.” 12. Having thus examined the materials on record, this Court finds no ground urged by the petitioner akin to the grounds mentioned under Rule 1 to Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 24th April 2015 and, accordingly, Civil Review No. 86 of 2019 is dismissed, with a direction to Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner to supply deficit Court fee of Rs. 230/- within the course of this week, if already not supplied. Tanuj (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)