SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 333

SUPREME COURT
D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, JJ
Oshiar Prasad and Others v. Employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s BCCL Dhanbad Jharkhand
Civil Appeal No.8403 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants: R.P. Bhatt
For the Respondent: Counsel for BCCL

Absorption claims under the Industrial Disputes Act require existing employment; retrenchment compensation claims can still be valid if evidence of non-payment exists.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10, 25F - Claim for absorption as regular employees rejected by Industrial Tribunal - Dispute was already settled in earlier case in favor of other workers - Appellants not in service on the date of reference, thus no merit to seek regularization. (Paras 26-32)

(B) Retrenchment compensation - Workers entitled to claim compensation under Section 25F as per the agreement by the respondent to pay, and no evidence of payment provided - Direction to Tribunal for verification and payment to workers issued. (Paras 36-41)

Table of Content
1. overview of case background and legal disputes. (Para 2 , 3 , 8 , 16)
2. jurisdiction of the tribunal and limits of reference. (Para 20 , 30 , 35)
3. entitlement to retrenchment compensation without completion of prior disputes. (Para 36 , 38 , 41)

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 447 of 2009 which arises out of the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 616 of 1999(R).

3. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appellants' intra court appeal and upheld the order of the writ court, which had dismissed the appellants' writ petition and in consequence upheld the award dated 21.12.1998 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 75 of 1995.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.

5. The respondent - M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the BCCL") is a Government of India undertaking. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various kinds of coal. It has a colliery at Dhanbad, Jharkhand known as "Sudamdih Coal Washery".

6. On 24.07.1974, the BCCL invited tenders for construction of Washery on Turnkey basis for running the colliery. The contract was awarded to one Company - M/s MC Nelly, Bharat Engineering Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor"). An agreement was accordingly executed between the BCCL and the Contractor on 29.01.1976. Since the execution of the work was to be done on turnkey basis, the Contractor was required to do everything to make the Washery operational. The work included the complete design of the Washery, supply of materials required for construction of plant, building, installation of machinery, all kinds of construction of the structures of Washery etc.

7. Pursuant to the contract, the Contractor started the work in 1977 by employing several skilled and unskilled workers and completed the same by December 1979. After completion of the work, the Contractor terminated the employment of all the workers and offered them retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of S.25 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") except 39 skilled workers, who were retained to look after the maintenance work of Washery after it was made operationalized. These 39 workers continued to work. After retaining their services for about one year, the Management terminated the services of these 39 employees in January, 1981. These 39 employees raised a dispute demanding their absorption and continuation in service with the BCCL. Since their demands were not accepted, a reference was made under S.10 of the Act to Industrial Tribunal No. 3 Dhanbad vide Reference Case No. 58 of 1981 to answer the following question:
"Whether the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Sudamdih, Dist. Dhanbad are justified in not absorbing Sarvashri Gorakh Sharma and 38 others as their regular employees? If not, to what relief are the said workmen entitled?"

8. The Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 03.03.1983 answered the reference in workers' favour and directed that 39 workers be absorbed by the BCCL in their employment as their regular employees and they be given all such consequential benefits to which they were entitled to claim due to their regularization in the services of BCCL. The BCCL did not challenge the award and implemented the directions by absorbing and regularizing these 39 workers in their employment.

9. It may be mentioned that five workers (including the appellants herein), who claimed to be working in the same project, filed Title Suit No. 51/1980 against the BCCL in the Court of Munsif 2nd Dhanbad under Order I R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for declaration that they are entitled to continue in their servic













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top