2 Separately, the appropriate government made another reference on 11
August 1994, being Reference 204 of 1994, under Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of 76 workmen who had been denied
regularisation in Balihari Colliery. In that reference, an Award was rendered by
the Industrial Tribunal on 14 August 2000 directing BCCL to regularise 73 out
of 76 workmen. The management challenged the Award in writ proceedings
before the High Court (CWJC 3824 of 2000). The High Court by a judgment
dated 26 July 2001 dismissed the writ petition. In a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA
543 of 2001), a Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 10
March 2003 modified the Award by directing that as and when the management
intended to appoint regular workmen, it shall give preference to the workmen in
question, if necessary by relaxing conditions of age and eligibility. The
judgment of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 3962 of 2006 by the Union. By a judgment and order dated 18 November
2009 the Civil Appeal was allowed and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was
restored. In consequence the workmen were directed to be reinstated though
without any backwages.
3 In the present case, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal
dated 9 September 1996 was modified by a judgment dated 18 May 2004 of the
High Court in CWJC 1654 of 1997. The Award was modified in the following
terms:-
“…the impugned awards are modified to the extent
that as and when M/s. B.C.C.L. intends to employ
regular workmen, it shall give preference to these 88
plus 20 persons, if they are otherwise found suitable
by relaxing the conditions as to the works age
appropriately taking into consideration their age at the
time of their initial appointment and also by relaxing
the condition regarding academic/technical
qualification”.
No appeal was filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court
dated 18 May 2004 by the Union. However, on 22 August 2011 a
representation was submitted on behalf of the workmen to the
management seeking employment for those governed by the Award dated
9 September 1996, as modified by the High Court on 18 May 2004.
Eventually, a writ petition was filed before the High Court under Article
226 seeking a direction to the employer to furnish employment to 20
workmen in terms of the order of the High Court dated 18 May 2004. The
writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 21 March 2012 on
the ground that execution of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal could not
be sought by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226. In a Letters
Patent Appeal, the Division Bench by a judgment dated 16 July 2012
affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge. The present proceedings
have been instituted to challenge the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 16 July 2012.
4 During the pendency of these proceedings an effort was made to
secure an amicable resolution of the dispute, which was unsuccessful. By JUDGMENT
an order dated 28 August 2015 the management was directed to dispose of
the representation submitted on behalf of the workmen on 22 August
2011. Accordingly, a reasoned order was issued on 16 September 2015 by
the Project Officer. The order notes that after the Award of the Industrial
Tribunal was modified by the learned Single Judge on 18 May 2004, the
workmen initiated a second round of litigation only in 2011 by filing a
representation on 22 August 2011 and thereafter instituting writ
proceedings. The order rejecting the representation notes that the
workmen had worked in 1987-1989 with a dummy contractor and nearly
26 years had elapsed since then. BCCL, it has been stated, was until
recently a sick company under the BIFR and had not initiated any regular
process of recruitment after the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18
May 2004. However, it has been noted that the management would make
a sincere endeavour to grant preference to the 14 workmen in case any
fresh recruitment is made subject to age and physical requirements being
met.
5 Leave was granted in these proceedings on 27 November 2015.
6 The narration of facts indicates that the Award of the Industrial
Tribunal dated 9 September 1996 directed the management of BCCL to
regularise the workmen, but without backwages. The Award was, however, modified by the High Court on 18 May 2004. As a result, the
management was only required in case it intended to employ regular
workmen, to give preference to the workmen in question by relaxing
conditions as to age and eligibility. The order of the High Court was not
challenged by the Union representing the workmen. Evidently, no
challenge was raised to the modification of the Award by the High Court
unlike in the case of Reference 204 of 1994. In that case, the Award of the
Industrial Tribunal was modified by a Division Bench of the High Court in
a Letters Patent Appeal on 10 March 2003. The judgment of the Division
Bench was challenged before this Court by the Union as a result of which,
by a final judgment and order dated 18 November 2009, the Award of the
Industrial Tribunal was restored and reinstatement was ordered without
backwages. In the present case, however, the fact remains that the order
of the High Court dated 18 May 2004 was never challenged.
7 The basic grievance of the workmen is that as a result of the
position which has ensued, the workmen governed by the present
proceedings of whom only 14 are left in the fray, are virtually without any
relief or remedy in practical terms. The workmen were engaged between
1987 and 1989. Nearly 27 years have elapsed since then. Many of the 14
workmen would be on the verge of attaining the age of retirement. There
is no occasion at present to grant them reinstatement since in any event, JUDGMENT
such relief has been denied in the judgment of the High Court dated 18
May 2004 which has not been challenged. However, the predicament of
the workmen is real. Two sets of workmen in the same colliery under the
same company have received unequal treatment. The present group of
workmen has faced attrition in numbers and has been left with no practical
relief. This situation should be remedied, to the extent that is now
permissible in law, having regard to the above background. In order to
render full, final and complete justice, we are of the view that an order for
the payment of compensation in final settlement of all the claims, dues
and outstandings payable to the 14 workmen in question would meet the
ends of justice.
8 We accordingly direct that the Respondents shall deposit with the
Central Government Tribunal (No.2) at Dhanbad an amount of Rs. Two
lakhs each towards compensation payable to each one of the 14 workmen.
This amount shall be in full and final satisfaction of all the claims,
demands and outstandings. Upon deposit of the amount, the Award of the
Industrial Tribunal dated 9 September 1996, as modified by the High
Court on 18 May 2004 shall be marked as satisfied. The Respondents
shall deposit the amount as directed hereinabove, within a period of two
months from today before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(No.2) Dhanbad in Reference 26 of 1993. The amount shall be disbursed JUDGMENT
to the workmen concerned subject to due verification of identity by the
Industrial Tribunal.
9 The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
New Delhi October 03, 2016