High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 04 JH CK 0019

RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH vs M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 9 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.N. Patel, J · Amitav K. Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No.689 of 2015

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 303 words

D.N. Patel, J

1.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner), being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P.(L) No.1925 of 2015, dated 13.10.2015, whereby the petition preferred by this

appellant was dismissed, and hence, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2.

Having heard counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Reference Case no.19 of 1992 was

preferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act for regularization into the services of the respondents.

3.

It appears that the award was passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, dated 16.01.2014, whereby after taking into

consideration the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that there is not an iota of evidence that 469 workmen were the contract workers of Bharat

Coking Coal Limited, hence, the Tribunal could not pass the order of regularization.

4.

Thus, it appears that there was no evidence before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. This aspect of the matter has been

properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant.

5.

It appears that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter mainly for the reason that there is bound to be a

factual aspect which must be proved by the workmen, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, in Reference Case No.19 of

1992. The main fact that 469 workmen were working with the contractor of the B.C.C.L has not been proved hence no relief can be granted to the

workmen.

6.

Hence, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.