Their workmen Sri Bhola Singh vs Employers in relation to the Management of Basudeopur Colliery

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-Management of Basudeopur Colliery under the B.C.C.L.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.09.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(L) No. 2650 of 2016, dismissing the writ application of the appellant-writ petitioner, challenging the Award dated 25.08.2009, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in Reference Case No.58 of 1997, which was answered in favour of the respondent Management, holding that the appellant had not made out any case for reinstatement in the employment as Overman, in Basudeopur Colliery, for the work done by him during the period 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993.

The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The petitioner claimed to have been allowed to undergo Post Diploma Practical Training [hereinafter referred to as PDPT (Mining)] for the period from 07.05.1991 to 05.05.1992 for which he was also paid stipend by the respondent Management. It was also claimed by the petitioner that after completion of two years of training, he was allowed to perform regular duty of Overman, against the regular and permanent vacancy from 06.05.1992 and he worked till 17.05.1993, to the full satisfaction of the Management. Thereafter, since 17.05.1993, he was stopped from working. An industrial dispute was raised, which was referred vide Reference No.58 of 1997, to the Tribunal for adjudication. The term of reference was as follows:-

"Whether the demand of the workman Shri Bhola Singh regarding reinstatement in the employment as Overman in Basudeopur Colliery and full wages against the work done by him during 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 is justified ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

The Tribunal answered the Reference vide Award dated 25.08.2009 in favour of the Management, holding that the appellant was never appointed in Basudeopur Colliery, and his claim for reinstatement and wages was not justified.

The said Award was challenged by the appellant-writ petitioner in this Court by filing W.P.(L) No. 2650 of 2016, which was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Single Judge, and the writ application was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated 06.09.2017, wherein on the basis of the records, the Hon'ble Single Judge held, that the documents on the basis of which the writ petitioner was claiming to have worked from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, was actually only a certificate of practical experience, granted by the Manager, Basudeopur Colliery, to the writ petitioner, under Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, showing that the petitioner had undergone practical training from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, in order to make him eligible to appear in the examinations for appointment of Forman / Overman / Surveyor etc.

The Hon'ble Single Judge has also come to the finding on the basis of the materials on record, that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that he was ever appointed in the said Basudeopur Colliery and he was ever paid any wages / salary for the period he claimed to have worked as Overman. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584, and also in Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 792, were referred to on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner before the Writ Court, to show that even if the workman had no letter of appointment, it could not be said that he was not entitled to reinstatement with back wages, if he had worked for more than 240 days in a year. The Hon'ble Single Judge has dealt with those decisions and has found that in the said cases, the employer had failed to rebut the contention that the workmen had worked for 240 days in a year, but in the present case, the respondent Management had vehemently rebutted the contention of the petitioner that he had been employed for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993 in the colliery, rather the respondent Management had successfully established the fact that he had only been allowed to undergo PDPT (Mining) training in the colliery for that period, and as such, the ratio of the aforesaid cases were of no help to the petitioner. Finding, that in the present case there had been no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the management, the Hon'ble Single Judge has given a finding that the writ petitioner had failed to establish the fact that he had worked for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, and he also failed to establish the fact that any wage or salary was paid to him during the said period. The Hon'ble Single Judge, finding that as no case was made out by the appellant that he was ever appointed in the said colliery, it could not be said that he was retrenched from service, and as such, there was no application of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the case of the petitioner. Giving these findings the writ application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Single Judge, have committed error of fact that the document showing that the petitioner had worked from 06.05.1992 till 17.5.1993, was only a certificate to show that he had undergone the PDPT (Mining) training for the said period. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage, and if that was a factual error, it was for the appellant to got it rectified before the Tribunal, which admittedly he has not done.

Learned counsel for the respondent Management on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in view of the findings detailed above, particularly the findings that the writ petitioner had failed to establish the fact that he had worked for the period from 06.05.1992 to 17.05.1993, and he also failed to establish the fact that any wage or salary was paid to him during the said period, and there had been no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the Management, we do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order dated 06.09.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(L) No. 2650 of 2016, worth any interference in the L.P.A. jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.