Sona Devi vs Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. B.C.C.L

Heard counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased Ex-employee against the Award dated 23.10.2015 passed by C.G.I.T. No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 23 of 2010, whereby the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the widow of deceased workman.

As per pleading, it appears that Late Prakash Kumar Rajwar was a permanent workman in the Gopalichak Colliery in P.B. Area of M/s BCCL Ltd. on the post of Miner/Loader having P. No. 02981959. The workman has been charged vide memo dated 04.09.2002 for unauthorised absence from the duty from 27.03.2001 to 30.09.2002. On such charge, enquiry has been conducted and ultimately he has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.09.2002.

The dismissal has been challenged by raising industrial dispute which has been referred as Reference Case No. 23 of 2010. The entire Award is quoted hereinbelow:-

"AWARD

By order No. L 20012/95/2009-IR (c-I) dated 10/02/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Gopalichak Colliery under P.B. Area of M/S BCCL in dismissing Sri Prakash Kumar Rajwar M/Loader from the service of the company w.e.f. 28.09.2002 vide order dated 27/30.09.2002 is justified and legal? To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 09/02/2000. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. The workman files their written statement on 15.04.2000. And the management files their written statement on 12.09.2000. Two witnesses examined on behalf of the workman and Ext W-1 to W-5 are also marked. But No witness examined on behalf of the management.

This is a case of dismissal of the workman. The dismissal of the workman was after due enquiry. The workman raised the dispute and finally the case came to this Tribunal. During the pendency of the reference, the workman died.

If a deceased workman died during trial, his case weakened like any thing. However, his wife has been substituted and prays for some relief.

Actually no relief is there for the wife of the workman. Since there is a death and the workman was an ex-employee of the management. Management to pay Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand only) towards final relief to Smt Sona Devi w/o deceased workman and nothing else.

This is my award."

Thus, the Award is not only unreasoned one rather it is against the mandate of Section-10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section-10(8) of the Industrial Dispute At, 1947 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Section-10(8): No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government."

Thus, the impugned Award suffers from the vice of unreasoned one and also being against the mandate of Section-10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reference may be made to the Paragraph 47 of judgment reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others wherein it has been held that unreasoned order is not sustainable and it has to be quashed.

In view of above discussion and judicial pronouncement, the impugned Award dated 23.10.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 23 of 2010 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. The proceeding of the Reference No. 23 of 2010 is restored to its original file. Learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. No.1, Dhanbad is directed to decide the dispute and pass a final order after hearing both sides within a year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of present order

It is expected that both the parties will to co-operate with the concerned Tribunal.

With above observations and directions, present writ petition stands disposed of.