CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 11 JH CK 0051

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 November 2010 · Citation: (2011) 1 JCR 386 : (2011) 3 LLJ 543

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhagwati Prasad, C.J · Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.W. J.C. No. 1917 of 1997 (R)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 347 words
1.

Heard both sides.

2.

The order impugned in this writ petition is the order of the Central Government by virtue of which the Government has refused to make reference in relation to the dispute raised by the Union of the vorkman. The order passed by the Central Government is in the following terms:

It is reported that workmen were employed through contractors. The Apex Court vide their judgment in Dena Nath and others Vs. National Fertilisers Ltd. and others, has held that contractor workers cannot be deemed to be employees of principal employer.

3.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the findings of the appropriate Government are the findings, which are beyond the scope of the powers, conferred on it and he places reliances on a case decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivwers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., as reported in AIR 989 SC 1565 and places reliance on paragraph No. 13. which reads as under:-

Attractive though the contention is. we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now well settled that, while exercising power u/s 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function, the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the order passed by the appropriate Government be set aside.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents was not in a position to dispute the proposition of law and in that view of the matter, we do not think that the order impugned can be sustained. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back for being decided in accordance with law to the appropriate Government.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed.