IMPORTANT POINT
Industrial Tribunal was right on consideration of evidence that the concerned four workmen were workmen of the Ramkanali Colliery at the time of take over by Nationalisation and they should be allowed to resume duty from the date of take over by appellant.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-C.A. No. 5797/1998 :

Four workmen, who claimed to be working from May or July 1972 in the Ramkanali Colliery of the appellant, raised a dispute that they were stopped from work by the management. The appellant contended before the Industrial Tribunal to whom this matter was referred that the non-coking coal mines were taken over by the Central Government on 31.1.1973 and was nationalized with effect from 1.5.1973 and none of these workmen were in employment before the date of take over. After the take over of the Colliery, a Screening Committee consisting of the representatives of the employer and the workmen scrutinized the claim of the workmen and found that the claim of these workmen was without any basis.

The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal reads as follows:

"Whether the demand of the workmen of Ramkanali Colliery of Messrs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Office Katrasgarh, District Dhanbad that Sarvashri Bishundeo Singh, Kanhaiya Prasad Karan, Attendance Clerks, Ashok Kumar Das, Munshi and Bachu Singh, Night Guard of West Ramkanali Section should he allowed to resume duty is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from what date?"

2. The Tribunal examined the matter in detail and on consideration of evidence held that the concerned four workmen were workmen of the Ramkanali Colliery at the time of take over and they should be allowed to resume duty from the date of take over. Thereby the management of the appellant was directed to reinstate the said workmen with continuity of service from the respective dates of stoppage of their duties. However, the Tribunal made certain adjustments regarding payment of wages for the period for which they had not worked. The matter was carried by way of a writ petition to the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award and the matter was carried by the workmen in letters patent appeal to the Division Bench which allowed the same and restored the award made by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. The contention put forth before us is that under Section 14 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] a workman who was in the employment on the appointed date, namely, 1.5.1973 alone is entitled to be protected in employment. On the date when the reference was made to the Tribunal, provision of Section 14 of the Act stood substituted with retrospective effect from 1.5.1973 and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have passed the award in the year 1987.

4. In The Workmen v. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.1, this Court examined the scope and effect of the provisions of Sections 9 and 17 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972, which are identical to Sections 7 and 14 of the Act in all respects. This Court held that Section 9 (similar to Section 7 of the Act) granted immunity to the Government against any award and it has to be read along with Section 17(1) (similar to Section 14(1) of the Act). So read, Section 9 does not nullify Section 17 or have a larger operation. In very felicitous terms, this Court stated the position as under:

7. Section 9 deals with the topic of prior liabilities of the previous owner. Section 9(1) speaks of "every liability of the owner.... prior to the appointed day, shall be the liability of such owner.... and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the Government Company". The inference is irresistible that Section 9(1) has nothing to do with wrongful dismissals and awards for reinstatement. Employees are not a liability (as yet in our country), Section 9(1) deals with pecuniary and other liabilities and has nothing to do with workmen. If at all it has anything to do with workmen it is regarding arrears of wages or other contractual, statutory or tortious liabilities. Section 9(2) operates only in the area of Section 9(1) and that is why it starts off by saying