AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
eard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for challenging the Award dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 83 of 1994 whereby refusal of claim of regularization has been approved by the concerned Tribunal.
From the pleadings and arguments, it appears that petitioner-workmen has claimed to be workmen of Bhowra Coke Plant. The said Coke Plant had been taken over in the year 1971 by the M/s BCCL. In spite of taken over, their services were not taken over and they continued to work with contractor. Consequently, in the year 1978, contractual work had been abolished and as such, the petitioner-workmen stand terminated. Thereafter an Industrial Dispute has been raised on 08.03.1993, which on failure of conciliation, has been referred for reference bearing Ref. Case No. 83 of 1994.
Terms of reference is quoted hereinbelow:
"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of the services of Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and 173 others (as per attached annexure) with the management of Bhowra Coke Plant of M/S B.C.C.L. is justified ? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"
Learned Tribunal, after examining the evidences of record, answered the reference in following terms:
"11. Accordingly, I render the following award- The demand of the Union for regularisation of the services of Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and 173 others, mentioned in the order of reference, with the management of Bhowra Coke Plant of M/s B. C. C. Ltd. is not justified and hence, the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief."
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since similarly situated workmen had been regularized, non regularization is unfair to the contractor's labourer as there are sufficient evidence available on record to suggest that petitioners-workmen was employed with the Bhowra Coke Plant when the Bhowra Coke Plant was nationalised and as such, services of the concerned workmen ought to have been regularized by the M/s BCCL.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- BCCL has taken a stand that the claim raised by the petitioner is a stale one. As per the pleadings of the workmen itself, they were out of job since 1978 for which an Industrial Dispute has been raised in the year 1993 i.e. after 15 years of termination from service. Further the Award has been passed on 17.02.2009 while the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2012 i.e. after three years from the date of Award. It has further been pointed out that now by efflux of time, most of them must have attained the age of superannuation. For supporting his point, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455. Relevant para-8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinblow:
It was submitted by the respondent that once a reference has been made under Section 10 of the Act a Labour Court has to decide the same and High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Labour Court. That is not a correct proposition to state. An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside that it is certainly subject to judicial review, limited though it might be. The High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In national Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 9 SC 377 this Court observed :
"24. It will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the industrial dispute, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference."
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is admitted position that the workmen had been out of employment since 1978. Industrial Dispute had been raised in the year 1993, even the present writ petition had been filed after three years of the Award. Thus from the sequence of facts, it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a stale claim. It is trite that the stale claim cannot be raised as an Industrial Dispute. It is also relevant that for consideration of regularization, relationship between the employer and employee must be in existence, but in the present case, relationship as employer and employee had come to an end in the year 1978 itself, while the Industrial Dispute had been raised in the year 1993 and as such, dispute raised by the concerned workman is not tenable in law being stale.
In view of the above discussion made, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition warranting any interference in the Award and as such, the same is, hereby, dismissed.