IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

------

L.P.A. No. 394 of 2010

-------

Employers in relation to the Management of Jarangdih Colliery of Central

Coalfields Limited, PO and PS Jarangdih, District Bokaro, having its

registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, District Ranchi

…

… Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

Their workmen, represented by Area Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union, Kathara Area, PO- Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro

… … Respondent

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

------

For the Appellant

: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;

Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate

------

J U D G M E N T

12^th January 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

The Central Coalfields Limited (in short, 'CCL') has challenged

the order dated 13^th November 2009 by which the writ petition filed by the

CCL taking exception to the award dated 27^th March 2001 in Reference Case

No. 96 of 1995 has been dismissed.

2.

By an order dated 22^nd August 1995, in exercise of the powers

under section 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central

Government has made the following reference for adjudication by the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 (in short, 'Tribunal'), Dhanbad:

“Whether the demand of the Union for the regularization of the

services of S/Shri Laljee Saw and others (as per list enclosed) by

the management of Jarangdih Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields

Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen

entitled?”

3.

Before the Tribunal, the workmen set up a plea that the work

performed by them through different contractors was permanent and

perennial in nature; they were working under the direct control and

supervision of the CCL inasmuch as they have been rendering services and

producing goods for the benefits of the CCL. In opposition, the CCL raised

serious dispute on the nature of the work performed by the workmen. It has

put forth a plea that the concerned workmen were never engaged for any

2 LPA No. 394 of 2010

work of permanent and perennial nature rather they were engaged for

short-term jobs by the respective contractors. The CCL has, therefore,

disputed employer-employee relationship between the parties.

4.

During the trial before the Tribunal, the following documents

were laid in evidence on behalf of the workmen:

(i) Identity Cards of the individual workmen (Ext. M-3 series),

issued to them by different contractors.

(ii) Xerox copy of cap-lamp issue register relating to the period

1992 to 1996 (Ext.W-1 series), issued by the Management of

Jarangdih Colliery on different dates.

(iii) Attendance chart (Ext.W-2 Series)prepared purportedly by the

Management of Jarangdih Colliery indicating that the concerned

workmen were engaged under different contractors at different

periods.

5.

The CCL has also produced work orders vide Exts. M-1 and

M-2 issued in favour of M/s Munna Singh, work order vide Ext. M-1/1 in

favour of M/s Bagga Construction, bills submitted by M/s Munna Singh

against the execution of work order vide Ext.M-3 series, registration

certificates under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

vide Ext.