The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 Their Workmen, represented through the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, having its Branch Office at Rajrappa, P.O., P.S.-Rajrappa and District- … … Respondent/Appellant Hazaribagh Versus Employer in relation to the Management of Rajrappa Coal Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd. through Ajit Kumar Choudhary, General Manager, CCL, Rajrappa Area, P.O., P.S.-Rajrappa & District-Ramgarh … … Petitioner/Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate --- 1st February 2024 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J I.A. No. 6290 of 2023 I.A. No. 6290 of 2023 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 87 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the interlocutory application, delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No. 6290 of 2023 is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 4. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the writ Court in W.P. (L) No. 6327 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Management’) has been allowed and the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has been set-aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Workmen’) has submitted that the matter arises out of a proceeding initiated before the Industrial Tribunal by reference made under sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the award passed earlier was challenged in W.P. (L) No. 3106 of 2001 wherein the award was set aside and the matter was remanded in terms of the order dated 14.03.2013 to the 2 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 Industrial Tribunal to once again decide the issue in the light of the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Steel Authority of India Limited and Others versus National Union Water Front Workers and Others” reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 after giving the opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. 6. The learned counsel submits that after remand a fresh award dated 19.05.2014 was passed in favour of the workmen but it was alleged by the Management before the learned writ Court that the award had not been passed in accordance with law and in accordance with the order of remand. The learned counsel for the workmen submits that the writ Court has set- aside the award dated 19.05.2014 instead of remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The learned counsel has also submitted that the total number of workmen involved in the present case is 161 and each workman is ready to adduce evidence except those who have expired. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management has submitted that despite the order of remand, no evidence was laid and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference. However, he submits that if the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal, some timeframe may be given, as the issue cannot linger for an indefinite time. 8. The records of the case reveal that a reference was made vide order dated 17.12.1992 by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 whereby following disputes for adjudication was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad which was numbered as Reference Case No. 2 of 1993: SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of Rajrappa Coal Washery of M/s CCL in not regularizing S/Shri Kartik Mahato and 160 others workers is legal and justified? If not what relief they are entitled to?” 9. The records of the case further reveal that the specific case of the Workmen before the learned Industrial Tribunal represented through their Union was that the concerned workmen were doing permanent nature of job and were under the control and supervision of Management and the 3 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 concerned workmen had put 240 days attendance in each calendar year and such job was prohibited to be performed through contract labour and therefore the concerned workmen were entitled to regularization. The case of the Management before the learned Labour Court was that coal washery was covered under the Factories Act and was not a mine and the work was not perennial; the work was granted to a cooperative and consequently, the workmen were not entitled to regularization. 10. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the Management and one witness, namely, Brij Lal Mahto was examined on behalf of the workmen and the respective parties filed their written notes of argument. Thereafter an award dated 15.10.2000 was passed holding that the action of Management in not regularizing Shri Kartik Mahto and 160 others in permanent employment of the Management was not justified and the concerned workmen were entitled to regularization and consequently, the Management was directed to regularize them within 30 days and the workmen were also held to be entitled to wages from the date of the award. 11. The Management being aggrieved by the award dated 25.10.2000 filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (L) No. 3106 of 2001 and vide judgment dated 14.03.2013, the award dated 25.10.2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to once again decide the issue keeping in light the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited & Others (supra). The following observations and directions were made by the learned writ Court while setting aside the award dated 25.10.2000 : - “18. Therefore, the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to once again decide the issue keeping into light the ratio led down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Supra) and giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after them. Since, the reference is of 1993, it would be in the fitness of things that the industrial reference be decided by the concerned Industrial Tribunal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.” 12. The fresh award dated 19.05.2014 was challenged by the Management by filing the writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 6327 of 2014 4 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 wherein the award has been set-aside and the order of the learned writ Court is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. 13. It was the case of the Management before the learned writ Court that the learned Tribunal at Dhanbad passed the award dated 19.05.2014 in favour of the workmen without examining the issues and without giving any findings on the issues for which the reference was remanded. It was the further case of the Management that the award was non-speaking and did not give any reason and the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition were not considered. 14. This Court has gone through the award dated 19.05.2014 impugned in the writ petition. After having quoted the order of reference, the learned Tribunal has recorded that after the order of remand both the parties were notified and the workmen choose to adduce evidence through one witness whereas the Management did not choose to adduce any evidence though sufficient chance was given to them and the matter was heard at length. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal recorded that the case has to be decided as per the norms of SAIL case. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed a cryptic award without complying with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 3106 of 2001 and the award is contrary to the spirit of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) which was the reason to set-aside the fresh award. 15. The grievance of the workmen is that having recorded that the fresh award was not passed in the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), the matter should have been remanded back for fresh consideration. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the workmen that all the workmen except those who have expired are ready to depose before the Industrial Tribunal and the award having not been passed in compliance with the judgment passed in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra), the matter was required to be remitted back. 16. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.P. State Electricity Board & Another vs. Aziz Ahmad” reported in (2009) 2 SCC 606, it has been held that pleadings are required to be proved by leading evidence and the matter was remitted back to the Industrial 5 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Paragraphs Nos. 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted as under: - “17. Being conscious of the aforesaid legal position we are of the considered opinion that the learned Industrial Tribunal committed a manifest error of law and of fact initially by placing the burden on the employer to prove and establish the job requirements of the said three posts, and thereafter, again committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the posts are identical on the basis of the pleadings of the parties alone. Pleadings are required to be proved and so long evidence is not led in support of the pleadings no reliance can be placed only on the pleadings without there being any cogent evidence in support of the pleadings. Pleadings are required to be proved by leading evidence. The Tribunal expressly stated in its findings that none of the parties have filed any objective data in regard to the work assessment of the posts of Boiler Overhauling Mechanic, Boiler Mistry or Fitter. In absence of such evidence the Tribunal was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the nature, duties and responsibilities of the three posts are identical and similar. 18. Therefore, we have no other option but to remand this matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. We, however, allow the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence in support of their claims and counter claims regarding the status and position of the aforesaid three posts. The Tribunal should see to it that the claims and the rebuttal of the said claim should be supported by cogent and reliable evidence. For that matter the Tribunal shall render an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence in support of their case and on the basis of the records, as available, the Tribunal would decide afresh the issue whether the nature, duties and responsibilities of the said three posts are identical, and thereafter, the Tribunal should answer the reference.” 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned writ Court ought to have remanded the matter to the learned Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law once having recorded that the fresh award was not passed in the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra). This Court also finds that the award dated 19.05.2014 is a cryptic order and the same is neither in consonance with the order of remand passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 3106 of 2001 nor in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra). 18. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court whereby the award impugned has been set-aside calls for a modification only to the extent that the matter is now remanded back to the learned Central Government Industrial No. 1, Dhanbad for passing fresh award after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel 6 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2022 Authority of India Limited (supra). The parties to appear before the learned Central Government Industrial No. 1, Dhanbad on 2nd April 2024. 19. The parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the case and a fresh award be passed within a period of six months from the aforesaid date of appearance of the parties. 20. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. 21. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Mukul