Central Coalfields Limited vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Shri Hari Narayan Prasad

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.

The Writ Petitioner - Central Coalfields Limited is aggrieved by the Order dated 13.08.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in M.J. Case No. 7 of 2002 whereby, the Labour Court held that on the basis of the promotion given to the workman in terms of the Award in Reference Case No. 48 of 1989, a sum of Rs. 96,931.38 Paise was computed and the opposite party was directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount within three months. It was further held that allowing notional promotion to the workman without giving monetary benefits in terms of the Award In Reference Case No. 48 of 1989 was not justified and was an eye wash only.

The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the respondent No. 2 Hari Narayan Prasad was employed as a Magazine Clerk with the petitioner Central Coalfields Limited. In course of his employment, he was chargesheeted for certain misconducts. Domestic inquiry was held and thereafter, he was dismissed from the service. The opposite party No. 2 raised industrial dispute and thereafter, by terms of Award dated 20.07.1983 Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad held that the dismissal of the workman was unjustified and thereby directed to reinstate in service with full backwages.

In the year 1989, another Industrial Dispute was raised by the petitioner against his supersession and the said dispute was also referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad Reference of which was as under:

Whether supersession on various occassions since 1975 of Shri Hari Narayan Prasad, Gradell Clerk under General Manager, Kuju Area of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. P.O. -Kuju, District - Hazaribagh by his juniors, is Justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

Both the parties contested the said Reference and ultimately, as it appears by an Award dated 04.08.1997, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad held that supersession of workman on various occassions since 1975 by his juniors was not justified and thereby directed the Management to consider the candidature of the workman for promotion from 1983 onwards i.e. after passing of the Award dated 20th July, 1983 In Reference Case No. 48 of 1989.

The management, thereafter, issued an office order on 27.11.1998 as contained in Anenxure-3 giving promotion to the workman notionally to the post of Clerk Graded with effect from 09.02.1976, to the post of Senior Clerk with effect from 25.11.1982 and to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 22.05.1990. When the promotional monetary benefit was not given to the workman, he filed an application u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court to determine/ compute the amount due to him and for direction to the employer to pay the amount so computed with interest. The application filed by the workman u/s 33(c)(2) is annexed as Annexure-4 to this writ petition.

From perusal of the said petition u/s 33(c)(2) (Annexure-4), it appears that the workman specifically asserted that in spite of several requests and demand made to the management for giving him the consequential monetary benefits, the management did not pay any heed and ultimately a legal notice was also sent by registered post, but no action was taken by the management in this regard.

As already noticed above, the Labour Court passed an order on 13.08.2002 as contained in Anenxrue-7, held that the cocnerned workman was entitled to the entire dues of the promotional post which on computation was found to be a sum of Rs. 96,931,38 Paise along with interest @6% per annum. The said amount was directed to be paid within three months from the date of the order. This order contained in Annexure-7 is under challenge in this application.

Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -Central Coalfields Limited submitted that the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh (Annexure-7) is without jurisdiction. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of entitlement of the workman since he was acting as an executing Court only and he could not have gone beyond the terms of Award passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Industrial Tribunal did not pass any order for payment of any benefits. Only direction was to consider the case of promotion for 1983 therefore, the Labour Court could not have directed to pay the monetary benefits to the workman. According to him, right and entitlement of the workman was not a matter to be decided in a proceeding u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his submission, he has relied on a decision in the case of D. Krishnan and Another Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mill and Another, . He also cited the decision of the Single Bench of this Court dated 16.04.2009 rendered in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh and Ors. i.e. W.P.(L) o. 6308 of 2002.

Mr. K.B. Sinha, Sr. Counsel, appearing for the concerned workman submitted that the Labour Court has not gone beyond the terms of the Award or the terms of Reference. According to him, when the Central Government Industrial Tribunal clearly held that supersession of the workman was unjustified and thereby directed the management to consider his case for promotion from retrospective date then In such case, all the monetary benefits which were given to the other junior persons, was a natural consequential relief extended to the workman also. He further submitted that no separate order for payment of monetary benefits was required to be passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal when it was already held that supersession of the petitioner was unjustified.

In my view, the stand of the employer Central Coalfields Limited is wholly unjustified and misconceived. When the Tribunal held the supersession of the workman to be unjustified then Central Coalfields Limited cannot deprive the concerned workman from the fruits of the Award passed by the Tribunal in his favour. When the Central Government Industrial Tribunal specifically directed the management to consider his case for promotion retrospectively i.e. from the date his other juniors were given the promotional and monetary benefits then in my view, there cannot be any reason to deny the promotional monetary benefits also. Denial of promotional monetary benefits to the concerned workman on the basis of no work no pay cannot be Justified in view of the specific findings of the Industrial Tribunal.

The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has rightly held that the workman Is entitled to all monetary benefits. Such findings of the Labour Court cannot be said to be beyond the terms of reference and Award. Therefore, the objection taken by the petitioner - Central Coalfields Ltd. for challenging the Award, cannot be accepted and hence rejected.

Consequently, this writ petition fails and the petitioners are directed to comply the order and direction passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in its entirety and all the payments with interest, as directed, must be made to the workman within a period of four weeks from today.

No order as to costs.