Employers In Relation to the Management of Bhalgora Area (Now Kustore Area) Of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs Workmen Being Represented by Janta Mazdoor Sangh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 484

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Employers In Relation to the Management of Bhalgora Area (Now Kustore Area) Of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Workmen Being Represented by Janta Mazdoor Sangh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No…… of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29873 of 2016)
Decided On : 07-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anisha Upadhyay, Advocates

Headnote:
Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 – Appeal - Appeal has been preferred by Management against judgment whereby, Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand had set aside order passed by learned Single Judge and restored Award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, workmen-respondents were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages - Whether names of workmen figured in Employment Exchange sponsored lists – Held, Fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law - Workmen here, having hoodwinked Government Undertaking in a fraudulent manner, must be prevented from enjoying fruits of their ill- gotten advantage - Sanctity of public employment, as a measure of social welfare and a significant source of social mobility, must be protected against such fraudulent process which manipulates and corrupts selection process. Employment schemes floated by State for targeted groups - Can absorb a finite number of workmen - To abuse legitimate process therefore would mean deprivation of employment benefits to rightful beneficiaries - Courts as sentinel of justice must strive to ensure that such employment programmes are not manipulated by deceitful middlemen, thereby setting up a parallel mechanism of Faustian Bargain - Often, desperate job aspirants’ resort to such measures to compete for limited vacancies, but this Court cannot condone false projections so as to circumvent statutorily prescribed procedure for appointments. Such illegal practices must be interdicted by Courts – Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Management against the judgment dated 11.02.2016 in the L.P.A. No.334/2008 whereby, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand had set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restored the Award dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 Dhanbad whereby, the workmen-respondents were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. We have heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Management. The respondent-Union who were espousing the interest of the discharged workmen, is represented by Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, the learned counsel.

3. The appellants are the Management of Bhalgora Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (‘BCCL’ for short), a Central Government Undertaking within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. By virtue of their status, the BCCL is required to process their recruitment, by notifying the vacancies and requisitioning names from the jurisdictional Employment Exchange, under the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the 1959 Act’)

4. In 1986, the BCCL decided to recruit Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates in vacancies of miners/loaders. Accordingly, the Management of BCCL made requisition from the Employment Exchange on the basis whereof, list of eligible SC/ST candidates for appointment was prepared. As a matter of fact, such list did not contain the names of any of the 38 workmen whose case is represented by the respondent-Trade Union. The allegation is that those 38 job aspirants, in connivance with a Dealing Assistant and a Personnel Manager of the Bhalgora Area of BCCL, dishonestly secured appointments. When such fraudulent appointments was detected, disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against the concerned Dealing Assistant and the Personnel Manager and eventually both were removed from service. Parallelly, Charge Memo was issued against the concerned miners/loaders and following the adverse finding in the departmental inquiry, the beneficiaries of the fraudulent appointment process were terminated from service.

5. The case of the 38 workmen was taken up by the respondent-Trade Union and in the Reference Case No.98 of 1994, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’ for short) concluded that the Management failed to substantiate the charge of manipulated appointment as the concerned witness i.e. the dealing clerk Jitendra Kumar Adeshra and the Personnel Manager PM Prasad, were not examined to prove the charge of unmerited appointment being secured by the workmen, in connivance with the said two employees of the Organization. For the perceived failure of the Management to justify their action, the termination orders were interdicted by the Tribunal and the concerned workmen were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

6. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s Award dated 28.09.2005, the Management filed the W.P.(L) No.1916 of 2006, challenging the finding and the direction of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge noted that the specific case of some of the workmen in their reply to the charge-memo was that their names figured in the Employment Exchange sponsored list, sent from Bhowra area to Bhalgora area and in this way, they tried to show that they were legally appointed. But in their Written Statement filed before the Tribunal in a clear departure from their earlier stand, the workmen on the second occasion contended that their appointments were made by the General Manager of the Bhalgora area independently and this was not related to the Employment Exchange sponsored panel, prepared by the Bhalgora area in 1986. While analyzing such contradictory stand, the Writ Court found that the lists sent from the Employment Exchange to the Bhowra area (marked as Exbt.M-3 to M-3/3) and the list sent from Bhowra area to B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document