Employers in relation to the Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of BCCL vs Their Workmen being represented by Sri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, B.C.K. Union

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the instant writ application the petitioner M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited seeks declaration that the Award dated 25.6.1992 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 271/90 has become infructuous in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others etc. etc., and in the case of Nitinkumar Nathalal Joshi and Others Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Others,

The admitted facts are that in the year 1990 the Central Government, Ministry of Labour referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal :

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (CITU) that 297 workmen listed in annexure and enclosed herewith should be departmentalized under the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s BCCL? If so, to what relief are the said workmen entitled?"

The Tribunal by the Award dated 25.6.1992 answered the reference in favour of the concerned workmen and directed the petitioner to departmentalize 297 workmen. The petitioner challenged the Award by filing CWJC No. 1980/1993(R) which was dismissed on 17.1.1994 by a Division Bench of this Court. Petitioner then filed SLP being SLP(C) No. 18092/1994, which was also dismissed on 7.11.1994. It appears that petitioner thereafter regularized/departmentalized 245 out 297 workmen, so far remaining persons are concerned, they were not departmentalized after finding that they are not genuine person. Out of 52 persons named in the award 47 persons filed application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of monetary benefits which was registered as L.C. Case No. 20/96. By an order dated 1.3.2001 the Court directed computation of monetary benefits in terms of the Award. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WP(L) No. 2429/2001. The writ petition as dismissed on 20.8.2001. The petitioner then preferred letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No. 620/2001, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.6.2003. Petitioner thereafter, preferred SLP being S.L.P.(C) No. 14751 of 2004. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 22.11.2004. A copy of the said order dated 22.11.2004 passed in the said SLP has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The Order of the Supreme Court reads as under :

"UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

We see no reason to interfere with the decision passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The SLP is dismissed.

The procedure set up by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court for the purpose of identification/certification of the workmen provides that the concerned workmen must file (i) a verification certificate from the sponsoring union, (ii) verification report regarding his/her identity from the concerned B.D.O. or Circle Officer along with his/her photograph and (iii) verification report from the Secretary of Kamgar . Shramik Sahayog Samiti. In addition to the aforesaid, we also direct the Collector, Dhanbad District, to file a verification report as a pre-condition to the payment of the amounts as directed by the Labour Court. The entire exercise to be carried out within a period of six months from date."

In the light of the admitted facts, discussed herein above, I am of the opinion that the instant writ application by the petitioner seeking a declaration that Award became infructuous is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. The Award having been implemented as against 245 out of 297 workmen and for the rest of the workmen the order passed by the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act having been confirmed up to the Supreme Court, the Award can not be declared by this Court as being infructuous,

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.