AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Roshan, J
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 25.03.2015 rendered in Reference Case No. 32 of 2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.I, Dhanbad.
The records reveal that the case was referred by the Central Government in exercise of power under Sub-Section (2A)(1)(d) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the following reference was made:
“(i) Whether the action of management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, Nagpur in retrenching the 25 workman (as per annexure) working at BCCL & CCL without obtaining prior permission of the conciliation Officer under Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act, 1947, before whom the conciliation proceedings were pending to justified and legal? (ii) To what relief are the workmen concerned entitled ?”
From bare perusal of the Award, it appears that there is no discussion, whatsoever, with regard to the written statement filed by the rival parties and also the deposition/evidence rendered by the rival parties. The Presiding Officer being in so hurry has decided the entire Award by giving finding in one paragraph. For brevity paragraph nos. 2 to 8 of the Award are extracted hereinbelow:
“2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 08.04.2010. After receipt of reference, both parties are noticed, the workman files their written statement on 03.05.2010, and the management files their written statement -cum-rejoinder on 25.10.2010. The workman adduced two witnesses but the management adduced one witness. Workman marked document as Ext. W-1 to W-14 and the management marked document as Ext. M-1 to M-3/9.
The short point to be decided in this case, is whether the retrenchment of 25 nos workman, While the conciliation proceeding is pending is fair and proper.
Admittedly the workman were engaged by the management for a temporary period as per their requirement. It is stated that when the requirement is over the management, retrenched them. But prior to that a conciliation proceeding was pending before ALC.
It is submitted by the management counsel that retrenchment of workman is no retrenchment and it is proper.
On the said question, this Tribunal do not express any opinion. But this Tribunal holds that, when the conciliation proceeding is pending, the management should have taken approval of the conciliation Officer or to intimate all fact to him before taking any action against them.
Therefore the action of the management violating section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act is improper, therefore before retrenchment the conciliation proceeding should have been finalized.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, Nagpur in retrenching the 25 workman (as per annexure) working at BCCL & CCL without obtaining prior permission of the conciliation Officer under Section 33(1)(a) of the I.D. Act 1947, is not legal. The management is a Central Govt. Organization, it may engage the workman any where they like in their organization as per the prevalent wage, but no back wages is allowed.”
After going through the Award, it is evidently clear that the learned Presiding Officer has neither dealt with any stand taken by the rival parties, nor taken into consideration the deposition etc. and straightaway came to a conclusion that the action of the Management without obtaining prior permission of the Conciliation Officer in retrenching 25 workmen is not legal.
Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines an Award which reads as under:
“award” means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relation thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Section 10A.”
After going through the aforesaid definition, it is evidently clear that a dispute has to be adjudicated and the adjudication means the decision with reason by giving deliberation of the stand and deposition of the rival parties. As stated hereinabove, from bare perusal of the Award which is quoted hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the learned Presiding Officer has not deliberated any stand of the rival parties nor given any finding on the deposition rendered by the rival parties and has held that the retrenchment of the concerned 25 workmen is not legal. This is nothing but miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed and the Award dated 25.03.2015 in Reference Case No. 32 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad with a direction to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Since the matter is very old, accordingly the concerned Tribunal shall pass the order within a period of six months after giving due opportunity to both the parties.
As a result, the instant application stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, also stand closed.