SAMYUKTA KHADAN MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of transferred application of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur, vide its order dated 16-07-2019 made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a union represented through Secretary and petitioner No. 2 is Vice-President to petitioner No. 1. The workers of the 1 st petitioner-Union were terminated due to Mine closure who were engaged at Bodal Project at Rajnandgaon district, department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, therefore, they have filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 3393/1989 before Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. The said petition came to be dismissed vide its order dated 30-06-1989, by observing that the petitioners can well raise an Industrial dispute in this regard. The order passed in the said Miscellaneous petition by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2479/1994 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Atomic Enery Commission is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act and therefore the question making applicants to seek reference does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the facts of the case, set aside the order of High Court and remitted the matter to decide the case in accordance with law.

(3.) When, the said writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge considering the subject in issue has held that, the appropriate forum for deciding the lis, under the facts and circumstances, would be the Central Administrative Tribunal and transferred the case to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), requested to hear the matter at Camp Court at Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). This is how the case came up for hearing before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), circuit sitting Bench, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and after considering the facts and issue involved in the transferred application, also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the transferred application. Tribunal recorded that the respondents have made endeavor to absorb as many persons, who became rendered surplus due to Mines closure to get alternate employment, subject to those, who were qualified, meeting the criteria of the Government of India for such employment, given employment at different units of the Department. All others, who could not get employed, have been offered compensation, which was accepted by 42 workers and only 40 daily rated workers refused to accept the retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal further recorded that the applicants/ petitioners failed to substantiate their submissions/ pleadings made in the application with respect to their averment that they have been superseded by their juniors.