IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta, JJ.
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen being represented by the Organizing Secretary - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 498 of 2010
Decided On : 27-09-2018
Regularisation - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's writ petition was dismissed, challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for regularisation of employees engaged by a contractor. The appellant appealed against the regularisation order.
Finding of the Court:
The workers engaged by the contractor were not entitled to regularisation as their work was peripheral and not the principal work of the employer. The completion of 240 days of work does not automatically entitle a worker to regularisation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the workers engaged by the contractor were entitled to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The completion of 240 days of work does not confer an automatic right to regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the law, rules, regulations, or policy decisions of the employer.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, and the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and the judgment of the Single Judge were quashed and set aside.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original Petitioner, whose writ petition, being W.P.(L) No. 3185 of 2003, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order, dated 24th June, 2010, whereby the award, dated 6th September, 2002, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 38 of 1991 was upheld and hence, the Original Petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, has passed the aforesaid order for regularisation of the employees, for whom Reference was made mainly on the ground that these employees have worked for 190 days and 215 days, except an employee at Serial No. 17, whose name is Jiondra Yadav.
2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that fire broke out in one of the coal mines of the appellant. Steps were to be taken by the appellant Management for prevention of fire in future also, for which they engaged a Contractor, viz. “Kankanee Shramik Sahyog Samity Ltd.” (Hereinafter to be referred to as “Contractor”).
3. The purpose of engaging this Contractor was for digging out earth, planting and watering of saplings and employees of this Contractor used to carry out such work. This Contractor was engaged in the year 1987.
4. A Reference was made by the appropriate Government, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for regularisation or otherwise of the employees of Contractor, being Reference No. 38 of 1991.
5. Evidences were led by both the parties, viz. Management as well as Workmen, and on the basis of evidences on record, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has passed the aforesaid Award on 6th September, 2002 regularising the services of the employees, except the workman at Serial No. 17, whose name is Jiendra Yadav.
6. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the Order dated 6th September, 2002, in Reference Case No. 38 of 1991, this appellant has preferred W.P.(L) No. 3185 of 2003, in which stay was granted on 9th July, 2003 against the operation, implementation and execution of the Award and later on, writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24th June, 2010 and hence, Original Writ Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
7. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that from the very beginning stand of this appellant-management, as is apparent from Paragraph Nos. 12, 15, 17 of the Written Statement (Annexure 1 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal), before the Central Government Industrial No.1, Dhanbad, was that the workers, for whom the Reference was made for regularisation, were employees of the Contractor. The contract was given for digging earth, planting and watering of plants. Evidence was also given by the Management Witnesses to this effect, especially by Management Witness No.1. There are also other documentary evidences on record, such as M-2 and M-2/1.
8. Looking to these evidences on record, it appears that the workers, for whom the Award for regularisation has been passed, were, in fact, the workers of the Contractor.
9. It further appears from the evidences on record that the Contractor was engaged because fire broke out in one of the coal mines of the appellant. Steps were to be taken by the appellant Management for prevention of fire in future also, for which they had engaged a Contractor. Workers of this Contractor were digging earth, planting and watering the saplings. These works have got nothing to do with the main work of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Nature of work appears to be purely adhoc in nature. Workers of the Contractor were never engaged for main and principal work of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. It further appears from the evidences on record that the workers, who were employed by the Contractor, were doing the
Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey
M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.