Back
2013 Supreme(Jhk) 870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Their workmen represented by the Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad & anr. – Respondents
W.P. (L) No. 3015 of 2001
Decided on: 19.07.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. K. Mehta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Laik, Adv.
Headnote:
Contract Labour - Regularization - Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 7, Section 12 - The judgment discusses the issue of regularization of contract workers engaged in cleaning settling tanks at a Coke Plant. The court analyzed the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar cases. The court found that the management's failure to comply with the Act's provisions did not automatically lead to regularization of the workers. The court also highlighted the importance of evidence in determining the nature of employment and the burden of proof on the employer.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the regularization of contract workers engaged in cleaning settling tanks at a Coke Plant. The management argued that the work was intermittent and casual, not requiring regular jobs. The workers sought regularization, claiming they had been performing permanent and perennial jobs under the direct control and supervision of the management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the management's failure to comply with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 did not automatically lead to the regularization of the workers. The court also noted that the evidence presented by the workers was insufficient to establish their regular employment for more than 240 days in a calendar year, shifting the burden of proof to the employer.
Issues: The court framed two issues: (i) Whether the workers were contractor's workers or under the direct control and supervision of the management, and (ii) Whether the workers were engaged in permanent nature of work for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the management's non-compliance with the Act's provisions did not automatically lead to regularization of the workers. The court also emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of employment and the burden of proof on the employer.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned Award, finding serious errors of law and facts that rendered the entire Award vitiated. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the management.
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Award dated 26th December, 2000, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 28 of 1992, is under challenge by the Management-writ petitioner, whereby it has been directed to regularize 27 concerned persons in the employment of Loyabad Coke Plant, however, with no back wages.
3. According to the petitioner-Management, on 28th March, 1986, work order was issued for cleaning settling tanks and throwing out dust at a reasonable distance. Later on 20th September, 1989, work order was issued to M/s. Kamgar Sharamik Sahyog Samitee Limited for cleaning of settling tanks. These workmen claim to be the members of the Co-operative Society, namely, Kamgar Sharamik Sahyog Samitee Limited having its Registration no. IDHN 1981 within the district of Dhanbad. Prior to 1989, the same nature of work was awarded to Shri Muslim Mian for doing certain contract jobs in the Coke Plant at Loyabad. The Loyabad Coke Plant Manufactures Hard Coke and bye products by feeding raw coal after crushing into the Coke Ovens unto the surface for the purpose of quenching the same with the help of pumped water. The Coke breeze produced in the process of manufacture of coke and quenching of the same is allowed to flow along with the water and settle on the small tanks constructed for that purposes. In that process, the tanks get filled up to different heights. These settling tanks are required to be cleaned once or twice in a week depending upon the quantity of Coke breeze produced in the process of manufacturing and quenching coke and the work is done by engaging Contractor workers.
4. According to the petitioner-management in the year 1989 because of some grievances raised by the concerned workmen against the said Muslim Mian, the management agreed to give a contract to the said Co-operative Society for executing the same work. It has been further stated that the nature of job is intermittent and casual in nature according to requirement on the basis of jobs available from time to time. However, the concerned persons through their Union raised an industrial dispute seeking regularization of their services in the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of petitioner-M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. On 26th March, 1992, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred the following dispute for adjudication:
“Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularization of Sri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others on the roll of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
5. The Respondent-Union on being noticed filed its written statement contending that they have been performing the permanent and perennial nature of job since long and hence they are entitled for regularization. The written statement is annexed as Annexure-1. It is contended in their written statements that the alleged intermediary is neither supervising the job of the concerned workmen nor supplying any implement to the concerned workmen. The management has been following anti-labour policy in refusing to regularize the workmen and forcing them to form an alleged co-operative as the employees are employed by the management and the arrangement is only a camouflage.
6. The management had also filed its written statement vide Annexure-2 on 30th October, 1992, contending that the work orders have been issued to the contractor of the Co-operative Society for cleaning of setting tanks as already indicated hereinabove. They took a stand that the work was casual, temporary and intermittent in nature, which does not require regular jobs.
7. However, by the impugned Award the learned Tribunal has directed the Management to regularize the services of the concerned persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Award by submitting that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the petitioner-Manageme
